University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston
Graduate Masters Theses Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses
6-1-2015 Native Interactions and Economic Exchange: A Re- Evaluation of Plymouth Colony Collections Kellie J. Bowers University of Massachusetts Boston
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/masters_theses Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Native American Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons
Recommended Citation Bowers, Kellie J., "Native Interactions and Economic Exchange: A Re-Evaluation of Plymouth Colony Collections" (2015). Graduate Masters Theses. Paper 303.
This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses at ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected].
NATIVE INTERACTIONS AND ECONOMIC EXCHANGE:
A RE-EVALUATION OF PLYMOUTH COLONY COLLECTIONS
A Thesis Presented
by
KELLIE J. BOWERS
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies, University of Massachusetts Boston, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
June 2015
Historical Archaeology Program
© 2015 by Kellie J. Bowers All rights reserved
NATIVE INTERACTIONS AND ECONOMIC EXCHANGE:
A RE-EVALUATION OF PLYMOUTH COLONY COLLECTIONS
A Thesis Presented
by
KELLIE J. BOWERS
Approved as to style and content by:
______David B. Landon, Associate Director, Fiske Center for Archaeological Research Chairperson of Committee
______Christa M. Beranek, Research Scientist, Fiske Center for Archaeological Research Member
______Stephen W. Silliman, Professor Member
______Stephen W. Silliman, Program Director Historical Archaeology Program
______R. Timothy Sieber, Chairperson Department of Anthropology ABSTRACT
NATIVE INTERACTIONS AND ECONOMIC EXCHANGE:
A RE-EVALUATION OF PLYMOUTH COLONY COLLECTIONS
June 2015
Kellie J. Bowers, B.S., Florida State University M.A., University of Massachusetts Boston
Directed by David B. Landon
This research furthers our understanding of colonial-Native relations by identifying and analyzing artifacts that indicate interaction between Native Americans and English settlers in Plymouth Colony archaeological collections. This project explores the nature of these interactions, exposing material culture’s role in both social and economic exchanges. Selected 17th-century collections were excavated in modern
Plymouth, Massachusetts, and nearby Marshfield and Kingston. My examination includes identifying materials exchanged between the Wampanoag and English settler groups in archaeological collections through scholarly literature and comparative 17th-century sites.
This project draws on the documentary resources to provide contextualized insights on the relationships formed by and around these interactions. My aim is to extract the nature of exchange in the negotiation of complex colonial contexts through material culture.
This research is intended to further decolonize our interpretations of the past, emphasizing the need for the reevaluation of old collections in search of previously silenced Native presence. iv
In memory of
Dr. Karin J. Goldstein
v AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the faculty and staff of both the Anthropology Department and the Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for Archaeological Research at the University of
Massachusetts, Boston. In particular, I would like to thank my committee members, Drs.
Christa Beranek, Stephen Silliman, and especially my committee chair, David Landon, for all of their guidance and support.
I would also like to thank the Kingston Public Library and Plimoth Plantation, both of which generously provided me with access to their archaeological and historical resources and knowledgeable staff. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Karin
Goldstein, who advised me through this project as the collections curator at Plimoth
Plantation. She was truly an inspiration and a treasured mentor, whose passion, enthusiasm, and scholarly contribution will not soon be forgotten.
A special thanks to my family and friends, whose faith in me and encouragement kept me motivated to keep working on this this project. In particular, I would like to acknowledge my mother and father, Jean and Rick, my biggest supporters and encouragers. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Thomas, whose love, support, and humor made this accomplishment possible.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix
LIST OF TABLES ...... xii
CHAPTER Page
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Project Overviews ...... 6 The Winslow Site (C-2) ...... 7 The R.M. Site (C-1) ...... 8 The Allerton Site (C-21) ...... 9 Research Organization And Presentation ...... 10
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...... 13 Postcolonial Approaches ...... 13 History of Postcolonial Studies ...... 14 Postcolonialism’s Impact on Anthropology and Archaeology ...... 16 Criticisms of Postcolonial Approaches ...... 17 Analytical Definitions ...... 19 Practice Theory: A Multiscalar Approach ...... 22
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND ...... 26 Early Woodland (3000-2000 B.P.) ...... 27 Middle Woodland (2000 -1000 B.P) ...... 28 Late Woodland (1000-400 B.P.) ...... 29 The Arrival of Europeans (A.D. 1492-1620) ...... 30 Relations with the English Separatists of Plymouth Colony ...... 32
4. HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION ...... 43 Trade Goods ...... 44 Copper and Copper Alloy Kettles ...... 44 Glass Beads ...... 46 Clothing and Related Items of Adornment ...... 49 Iron Implements ...... 54 Spoons ...... 56 European Pipes ...... 58 vii Firearms ...... 58 “Little Bells, Glasses, And Trifles” ...... 60 Native Material Culture: Traditional Persistence and European Influences ... 61 Lithics ...... 62
CHAPTER Page
Shell Beads ...... 63 Ceramics ...... 63 One Object, Multiple Meanings ...... 64
5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND DATA ...... 66 The Winslow Collection ...... 67 Historical Context ...... 67 Material Culture ...... 67 Spatial Analysis of the Winslow Site ...... 76 Discussion ...... 86 The R.M. Collection ...... 87 Historical Context ...... 87 Material Culture ...... 89 Spatial Analysis of the R.M. Site ...... 101 Discussion ...... 106 The Allerton Collection ...... 108 Historical Context ...... 108 Material Culture ...... 108 Spatial Analysis of the Allerton Site ...... 114 Discussion ...... 117
6. CONCLUSION ...... 118 Site Comparisons ...... 119 Material Culture ...... 122 Daily Practice and the Shaping of Colonial Identities ...... 131
WORKS CITED ...... 134
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional map of Massachusetts locating the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites. (Courtesy of Eric Johnson, University of Massachusetts, Boston) ...... 3
2. A knife blade, ivory handle, trifid spoon stalk, and seal top spoon from the Winslow site ...... 68
3. Firearm related artifacts from the Winslow site. From top to bottom, gun barrel, shot mold, gun scourer, lead shot (2), battery, gun flake (flint) ...... 69
4. Copper-alloy kettle parts from the Winslow site. From the upper left: riveted sheet metal, riveted lug, rolled or folded kettle rim, triangular patch, rectangular patch ...... 70
5. Rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular sheet metal sheet metals from the Winslow site ...... 71
6. Possible broken projectile point from the Winslow site, bottom side (point) has been folded to fracture; other three sides have been cut ...... 72
7.“Aglets” or possible rolled beads from the Winslow site (left) as compared to a uniform, manufactured aglet from the R.M. site (below) ...... 72
8. Tools, personal items, and other metal objects from the Winslow site. Pictured from top to bottom, left to right: lead bale seal, mouth harp, button, brass buckle, clothing hooks, straight pin, fish hook, awl ...... 75
9. Possible stone buttonmold from the Winslow site ...... 76
ix Figure Page
10. Historic site plan of the 1941 excavations of the Winslow site. (Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation) ...... 78
11. Historic site plan of the 1947 excavations of the Winslow site (Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation) ...... 79
12. Spoon handle ground down to a point...... 86
13. Tools, firearms, personal items, and other metal objects from the R.M. site. From top to bottom, left to right: wedge, iron buckle, brass buckle, curtain ring, knife with bone handle, thimble, scissor fragment, gun worm ...... 89
14. Rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular sheet metal from the R.M. site...... 91
15. Metal projectile point from the R.M. site...... 93
16. A fragment of sheet metal that appears to have the partial scored outline of a projectile point...... 93
17. Manipulated sheet metal from the R.M. site. Pictured from top to bottom, left to right: pierced pendant or earring with cruciform design, clipped cruciform shape, un-pierced pendant/earring or token, rolled beads, and clips...... 95
18. Modified book clasps from the R.M. site. See detail photo for incised design ...... 96
19. Lead bale seals from the R.M. site...... 97
20. Evidence for the manipulation of lead at the R.M. site ...... 97
21. Possible lead buttons, tokens, or discs. Incised fish scale and punctuated designs ...... 98
22. Beads from the R.M. site. Kidd Types pictured from top to bottom, left to right, 1st row IIa40, WIb16, 2nd row IIa35 (all 3), 3rd row, IIa13, IIa35 ...... 99
x Figure Page
23. Steatite pipes in European forms from the R.M. site ...... 100
24. R.M. site map facing west; includes both Hornblower and Fernstrom excavation grids. (Courtesy of Craig Chartier, Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project) ...... 102
25. Tools and utensils from the Allerton site. From top to bottom, left to right: scissor fragments, a shot mold, knife fragment, chisel, slip top spoon stalk, seal top spoon stalk ...... 110
26. Beads from the Allerton site. Pictured left to right, Kidd types IVn5 and IIbb1 ...... 110
27. Sheet metal fragments from the Allerton site ...... 111
28. Possible rolled beads and a clip from the Allerton site ...... 112
29. Allerton site map. (Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation) ...... 114
xi LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Clothing Related items from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton Sites ...... 124
2. Copper alloy sheet metal by shape from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites ...... 125
3. Characterization of copper alloy sheet metal from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites ...... 126
4. Tools from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites ...... 127
5. Spoons from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites ...... 127
6. Knives and bone handles from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites ...... 127
7. Assorted small trade related finds from the Winslow, R.M and Allerton sites ...... 128
8. Firearm related materials from the Winslow, R.M., Allerton sites ...... 129
xii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“We have found the Indians very faithful in their covenant of peace with us…we
often go to them, and they come to us…” -Edward Winslow, 1621
The aim of this thesis is to identify and re-contextualize material culture that indicates colonial-Native interactions in Plymouth Colony archaeological collections.
Scholars have been able to identify material evidence of multicultural interactions in colonial and Native contexts not only in New England, but also across various regions of North America (Bradley 2006; Deagan 1983; 1998; Gary 2007; Gibson 1980;
Lightfoot et al. 1998; Rubertone 2001; Van Dongen 1996). This type of interpretive analysis has not previously been applied to the numerous 17th-century Plymouth assemblages located at Plimoth Plantation, a living history museum in Plymouth,
Massachusetts. Three of these archaeological collections, the R.M., Winslow, and
Allerton-Cushman sites, have been selected because they contain potentially multiethnic contexts (Figure 1). These collections include pre- and post-European arrival Native artifacts, items associated with the fur trade, and other culturally ambiguous objects.
1
I aim to re-contextualize these colonial assemblages using documentary resources to represent evidence of a Native presence, which has been formerly overlooked. This work is important, as artifacts that represent interactions between
Native people and colonists and the spaces in which they occurred are critical to understanding the social complexity of colonial New England (Turgeon 1997).
Each of the selected sites poses unique challenges to re-analysis as the collections are older and have varying provenience and documentary problems.
Problems with each collection are specifically explained and addressed in this work.
Due to these complications, this analysis is primarily qualitative and descriptive.
Efforts were made to identify spatially related areas containing evidence as precisely as possible. Artifacts that lack provenience information or that are no longer present in the collection are also secondarily addressed if deemed appropriate. These materials are recorded and described in original field notes, artifact catalogs, and reports. I rely heavily on documentary records and ethnohistorical accounts to contextualize all finds.
This thesis is part of the larger Project 400, a collaborative effort between the
Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for Archaeological Research, the Institute for New
England Native American Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, and
Plimoth Plantation. Project 400 is being done in advance of the quartercentenary of
Plymouth Colony (2020) to produce scholarly work and promote community involvement through archaeology, historical research, and public outreach.
2
Figure 1. Regional map of Massachusetts locating the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites. (Courtesy of Eric Johnson, University of Massachusetts, Boston)
3 My project investigates assemblages at Plimoth Plantation using a post- colonial approach that looks to decolonize, and in part, de-mythicize the national narrative surrounding stories of the “Pilgrims and Indians” (see Baker 1992 for a discussion of these national myths). This methodology aligns with the theoretical and ethical framework of the larger Project 400. Two specific goals of this research directly contribute to Project 400. First, this project forms a source of comparative archaeological data that identifies the material evidence of colonial-Native interactions in Plymouth Colony. Second, this project re-visits existing collections with a framework that seeks to acknowledge and understand Native experiences.
The seminal work, The Times of Their Lives: Life, Love, and Death in
Plymouth Colony, explains the embedded nature of the story of the Pilgrim Fathers and the first Thanksgiving in the national narrative of the United States (Deetz and
Deetz 2000). These stories have so infiltrated our national consciousness that they serve as its “origin myth…the natural place to begin our [American] story” (Deetz and Deetz 2000: xiii; see also Demos 2000: 2). The power of these stories becomes starkly apparent every fall when images of broad black hats with buckles, feathered headdresses, Plymouth Rock, turkey, and pumpkin pie bombard school children (and adults) across the United States. Simplified, and even fictive, stories of perseverance, friendship, hope, and above all, thankfulness, are what Americans bring to the table on the last Thursday of November every year.
In reality, the first Thanksgiving, and all encounters between colonists and
Native people, was fraught with tension and uncertainty for the future of both parties.
4 Historical accounts of these multiethnic interactions are snapshots of a fluid and complex colonial world, where individuals and groups interacted and reacted to each other in varying ways. Through the analysis and careful contextualization of archaeological remains, scholars can attempt to bring these multiethnic encounters into better focus, providing a more balanced account of the complexity, multiplicity, and anxieties that pervaded these contexts.
Post-colonial theorists propose that notions of identity in uncertain colonial landscapes are “contingent, flexible, and discursively constructed” (Liebmann 2010:
73). Liebmann stresses “the role of social interaction” in the ongoing processes of identity formation and transformation in complex colonial landscapes (2010: 73).
Archaeological remains can show how colonists and Native people may have used material culture as a means of mitigating this tension through creating or maintaining individual and group identities. Archaeological and documentary sources implicate material culture in the production of identity in two major ways. First, objects and historical accounts provide evidence of multiethnic influences and cross-cultural transformations (or what some have termed “hybridity”). These ambiguous objects can no longer be “neatly classified into a single cultural or ethnic category”
(Liebmann 2010: 5), and are categorized by differences in traditional production, alteration, use, and context (Lightfoot 1995). Second, objects intended for trade are not uniformly distributed throughout the colonial world due to regional and temporal
Native acceptance, rejection, and varying preference of these goods. Applying documentary and archaeological data contextualizes artifacts and sites, allowing for a
5 more nuanced comparative analysis. These sources also nuance our perceptions of
“Native” and “European” material culture, helping scholars avoid the pitfalls of essentializing dichotomies (Gullapalli 2010).
Project Overviews
Over seventy years ago Henry Hornblower II began formally excavating
Colonial Plymouth sites with the Harvard Excavator’s Club (Beaudry and George
1987). He was deeply dedicated to telling the story of the “Pilgrims” and the Native groups who lived near and among them. Through archaeology, scholarly research, and contagious enthusiasm he founded Plimoth Plantation, a living history museum that portrays the Colony and its Native neighbors in the year 1627. Hornblower invested in and oversaw excavations and interpretations of “Old Colony” sites for several decades. His findings and those of James Deetz, who worked as the first director of Plimoth Plantation’s archaeology program, make up much of the archaeological collections at the museum today (Gomes 1985; Plimoth Plantation
2010).
Since the 1940s, focal points of research on these assemblages have varied, centering primarily on architectural interpretations (Beaudry et al. 2003; Deetz 1977,
2000), but no work has yet focused on artifacts that point toward colonial-Native interactions in the 17th century. An established body of literature that identifies objects implicated in colonial-Native interactions now exists. I utilize this body of resources to draw on data from archaeological sites all over North America (Brain
6 1979; Bragdon 1988; Brenner 1988; Deagan 1983, Gary 2005, 2007; Gibson 1980;
Hart 2004; Huey 1988; Lightfoot et al. 1995; Rubertone 2001; van Dongen 1996).
Many of the artifact types implicated in these colonial exchanges are present in the
Plimoth Plantation collections, which can be used to illuminate the complex reality of colonial-Native interactions and give a voice to Native people, whose material presence at these sites has historically been under-addressed.
Of the known Plymouth Colony sites and existing archaeological collections, I selected sites and their archaeological remains based on three criteria. The first is that all three sites had to have major components that dated to before 1700, and had historical documentation associated with the site that suggested (to vary degrees of certainty) trade and interaction with Native people. Second, the land that encompasses all of the sites had to be regarded as part of the traditional homeland of the Wampanoag people with tribal descendants still living in the region today, and archaeological components at each of the sites had to contain Native materials that both pre-dated and overlapped European materials. Finally, each collections had to contain material culture identified as 17th-century trade goods and materials that appear to show multiethnic influences or uses of Native and European cultures.
The Winslow Site (C-2)
Located in nearby Marshfield, Massachusetts, this site is owned by the
Marshfield Historical Commission. The site is in a residential area, less than a mile from both Plymouth Bay and Duxbury Marsh, and is near the standing Isaac Winslow
7 House. When surveyed in 1991, the site was described as flat overgrown pastureland
(Massachusetts Historical Commission 1991). This site has been identified as the remains of the home of colonial Governor Josiah Winslow’s family during the second half of the 17th century and is the most affluent and materially dense of the selected collections. Josiah’s father, the famous Mayflower passenger Edward Winslow, probably did not live in this structure, although his home site is thought to have been on the same property. Both of the Winslow men served as colonial governors and are historically documented as diplomatic figures to the Wampanoag people. There is also evidence that a Native manservant lived on the property.
Henry Hornblower II and the Harvard Excavator’s club excavated the
Winslow site starting in 1941. These excavations covered more than 1500 square feet exposing the cellar hole and what appeared to be the primary structural remains
(Goldstein 2001: 95). Hornblower hired Ripley Bullen to expand the excavation in
1947. His investigation exposed what Bullen interpreted as a colonial trash pit that capped a Native shell midden (Goldstein 2001). Artifacts from both the Hornblower and Bullen excavations are stored together at Plimoth Plantation. Varying structural interpretations are further discussed in Beaudry et al. (2003), Deetz and Deetz (2000), and Goldstein (2001).
The R.M. Site (C-1)
The R.M. site is located on the property of Plimoth Plantation in Plymouth,
Massachusetts. It is named for a 17th-century latten spoon recovered from the site
8 with the initials “R.M.” scratched into the bottom of the bowl. The property is less than a mile from Plymouth Bay and is even closer to the Eel River. Pine and oak trees with deciduous undergrowth characterize the majority of the property; portions of it have been developed and cleared for various uses. This site has been presumed to be the garrisoned home of the Clark(e) family, which was burned down by Native people at the beginning of King Philip’s War in 1676 (Beaudry et al 2003; Deetz and Deetz
2000). Colonial court documents surrounding the event provide fascinating insight into the relationship that Clark(e) may have had to Native neighbors and the profound impact of King Philip’s War.
Hornblower began investigating the R.M. site with Jesse Brewer and the
Harvard Excavator’s Club as his first professional excavation project from 1940-41
(Hornblower 1950, 1943). He also oversaw returning excavations by Karl D.
Fernstrom in 1949 (Beaudry and George 1987). James Deetz also briefly worked on the site in 1969, followed by a survey done by Douglas George in 1987 before the site area was turned into a parking lot (Plimoth Plantation 2010). The majority of the finds and features were identified during the Hornblower and Fernstrom digs.
The Allerton Site (C-21)
The Allerton site is located on private property in Kingston, Massachusetts, and overlooks the Jones River less than a mile away. Mayflower passenger Isaac
Allerton owned this land and built a home on it in the 1630s. Allerton was involved in many business ventures throughout the colonies and was a known trader. Most of the
9 archaeological remains recovered at the site are thought to date to a later occupation in the second half of the 17th century by Allerton’s son-in-law and daughter, the
Cushmans (Deetz and Deetz 2000).
James Deetz excavated this site in 1972 in response to impending residential construction that had placed the site in immediate danger. The excavation exposed the rock fill of a 17th-century cellar. This cellar was later determined to intersect with a hearth dating to what was probably the original Allerton structure on the property.
Further investigation of this feature lead to the discovery of the post molds, making this the first earth fast structure in Colonial New England to ever be recovered archaeologically (Deetz and Deetz 2000). Archaeological interpretations of this site are further discussed by Deetz and Deetz (2000a, 2000b) and Deetz (1979). Most of the artifacts recovered from this site are stored at Plimoth Plantation, but a portion of the earliest materials are stored at the Kingston Public Library.
Research Organization and Presentation
This thesis explores the intersections of material culture and the shifting milieu of people, powers, and relationships in Plymouth Colony through the lens of historical archaeology. Central to this discussion is the notion that objects are ambiguous, with varying life histories, uses, and meanings that morph as objects move through time, possession, and cross cultural lines. As Diana Loren suggests, these objects and their life histories can outspan those of individual owners and ascribed meanings, to “constrain and influence the lives with whom they come in
10 contact” (Loren 2010:10). This ambiguity, as documented by the archaeological and historical record suggest that “a tension often existed between the meaning an object once held for its producer and the ways that object was used, manipulated, and appreciated later it in its life” (Loren 2010:10). The chapters of this thesis aim to draw out and address the ambiguity of objects, relationships, and power in these shared colonial spaces.
Chapter 2 outlines post-colonial theory as it pertains to this project. This chapter summarizes the historical shortcomings of the disciplines of anthropology and archaeology in regard to Native American presencing and representation and explores how recent works have begun to redress and reframe these issues and the overarching nature of archaeological and anthropological inquires. I then discuss how I utilize postcolonial theory, practice theory, and concepts of ‘material histories’ as the analytical framework for this interpretation.
Chapter 3 provides a historical background of the Native Americans of southern New England and of European settlers. This account focuses on the continuity of Native ways of life throughout colonization and the strategic motivations behind the actions of both Native groups and European settlers as they created and navigated the colonial landscape. While an overarching narrative of
European and Native groups of the region is essential, this description emphasizes the
Pokanoket (Wampanoag) and the English Separatist settlers now known as the
“Pilgrims.”
11 Chapter 4 contextualizes material culture using textual and archaeological resources. Here, I take a closer look at evidence from case studies and primary accounts to investigate how European materials were assigned Native meanings and utilized in unique and often unexpected ways by people in the past. This chapter is divided into sections by artifact type and focuses on types present in the collections.
Chapter 5 discusses the archaeological sites and data from each collection.
This section is organized by site and is intended to function to some degree as a descriptive artifact catalog for comparative research. For each site, I first examine artifacts by type, and then by spatial distribution. Finally, I include a discussion of the site and recovered materials overall, which includes more site-specific historical information and documentary evidence.
Chapter 6 summarizes and draws conclusions from all of the data discussed.
Certain artifacts and types that merit further discussion are given special treatment and interpretation. Finally, findings from each site are compared taking social, political, and economic variances into consideration.
12 CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Postcolonial Approaches
Colonial contexts are complex, ambiguous, and have historically been misrepresented by interpretations that are static, one-sided, and Eurocentric— often silencing the presence of Native people (Rubertone 2000; Silliman 2010a: 29). Recent archaeologies have been utilizing postcolonial theory to reframe questions about
Native-colonial interaction and the spaces in which those intersections took place
(Silliman 2009: 211). Categorical analysis of artifacts from colonial contexts often leads to “either/or scenarios” raising questions of change and continuity that center around notions on origin and “tradition” (Silliman 2009: 213, 2010). This research aims to offer a lens through which artifacts can be interpreted, not as either “Native” or “colonial,” but as material culture that transcends singular meanings and labels through social memory, material practice, and material histories (Silliman 2009: 213-
214; Stahl 2010; Voss 2008). This analytical framework permits for more fluid—and even multiple—interpretations of these sites, actively reframing artifacts and their contexts to look for the presence of Native people in colonial spaces.
13 History of Postcolonial Studies
Postcolonial studies can be defined as “approaches that challenge traditional colonial epistemologies, questioning…the representation of ‘Others’ that has been produced in colonial and imperial contexts” (Liebmann 2010: 2). These approaches recognize power differentials and strive to identify the long and short-term effects of colonialism on both the colonized and colonizers. Postcolonial studies were engendered by fluctuating political climates and conflicts after World War II, especially in regions such as India that were undergoing decolonization. These fluctuations were primarily the result of the struggle between socialist and capitalist world powers, the shift toward decolonization, and the emergence of notions of the
Third World (Liebmann 2010; Patterson 2010).
Important early theorists and texts came out of colonial literature and cultural studies programs in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Bhabha 1992; Said 1978; Spivak
1988). This growing discourse has been slowly re-shaping the theory and practice of archaeology since its application to the field of anthropology in the 1980s (Patterson
2010: 21). Postcolonial studies are not a single, specific theoretical position, but rather encompass many ideas and practices from diverse theoretical frameworks.
Patterson (2010) defines postcolonial studies as an “umbrella term” that “refers to cultural effects as well as interactions and representations engendered by societies that were formerly European colonies” (2010: 21).
Said’s (1978) work contributes to postcolonial studies by establishing notions of essentialism and how they relate to dominance and power inequalities between the
14 colonized and the colonizer. Said was influenced by Foucault’s analysis of discourse and systems of knowledge that “only have meaning in the context of power relations”
(Patterson 2010: 27). Said was also heavily influenced by Marxist writers (Gramsci
1929-37; Williams 1958) who discussed “the distinctions between civil and political society or hegemony” and ideas about “unlearning dominative modes of thought”
(Patterson 2010: 27). My project strives to “unlearn” some of those conceptual frameworks embedded in historical and archaeological narratives about Plymouth.
Concepts developed from Homi Bhabha’s The Location of Culture (1994) are particularly influential to my analysis as well Bhabha’s discussion of power and control create a deeper, more complex, and nuanced view of the colonized–colonizer dynamic, a relationship once treated as primarily static. Bhabha argues that identity formation is impacted by subjectivity within the context of colonial settings. He further explains that identities within colonial contexts are bounded— meaning that the colonizer and the colonized “need each other to constitute themselves” (Patterson
2010: 28). Bhabha also establishes forms of agency and resistance of the colonized within these complex settings. Finally he argues that the large-scale movement of people groups into consistent contact with one another results in instances of
“hybridity and the re-articulation of cultural differences in new spaces and places”
(Patterson 2010: 28). I seek to examine whether or how notions of hybridity and cultural difference play out in these assemblages under analysis.
15 Postcolonialism’s Impact on Anthropology and Archaeology
The legacy of archaeology and anthropology are most blatantly marred by former models of acculturation that in some ways still color the mindset of academics and of our culture as a whole (Silliman 2010b). Silliman explains that these models
“rely on the notion of cultures as having rigid boundaries” and the “exchanging [of] traits upon contact” generally from European to Native, effectively contaminating or eroding Native cultures (Silliman 2010b: 147, 2009: 211; e.g. Herskovits 1937).
Cusick has identified other issues with these acculturation approaches which include
“[o]rientation toward trait lists, [c]ulture as ‘entities’” and the “under emphasis of individual decision making” (1998: 130-131; see also Silliman 2009). Acculturation approaches encourage a compartmentalized way of thinking about people groups
(Herskovits 1937; Spicer 1961), completely disregard power relations, aid notions of the “vanishing Indian,” and are in and of themselves continuing colonial acts (Cusick
1998: 128; Loren 2008).
Archaeology has been greatly affected by postcolonial studies over the last two decades, as these have provided a framework for analyzing the discipline’s own methodology, assumptions, and concepts of knowledge and knowing. This movement has allowed for the process of decolonization and democratization to begin (Rizvi
2008). Preucel and Cipolla argue that decolonization requires “redressing …power imbalances established in the colonial process” and is a “long-term process involving the cultural, linguistic, and psychological divesting of colonial parameters” (2008:
136). Archaeologists are currently engaging in a postcolonial discourse that calls for
16 the examination and expulsion of the colonial mindset within our own discipline and that draws on the complex issues which blur the lines of rigid power and identity constructs between the colonizer and the colonized. Issues such as labor, race, sexuality, and inequality reinforce the view of “cultures, identities, and social relationships as contextually malleable, historically situated, frequently hybrid, often ambiguous, and discordant” (Silliman 2010b: 147). By using decolonizing interpretive methodologies, the complexities of colonial contexts—especially evidence of multiethnic interactions and re-appropriation—can be carefully examined
(Bhabha 1985; Liebmann 2010).
Criticisms of Postcolonial Approaches
Although postcolonial perspectives have benefitted archaeology, its lenses cannot be applied carelessly. Critics of postcolonial approaches caution against inadvertently producing some of the negative effects of colonialism that they contest.
Liebmann (2010:10) lists some of these pitfalls as:
homogenizing colonial experiences (Shohat 1992: 102); perpetuating academic
imperialism (Dirlik 1994; Murkherjee 1996); divorcing theory from political
realities (Ahmad 1995; Dirlik 1994); neglecting to account for the material
aspects of colonialism (Parry 2004; Godsen 2001: 248, 2004: 7; Patterson
2008); and most problematically for archaeologists, failing to adequately
acknowledge the role of history in cultural change (Ahmad 1992; Dirlik 1999;
Gosden 2001: 243).
17 While these offer important signposts to acknowledge and carefully consider, there are some reasonable retorts to these claims. In response to the homogenizing effect of postcolonial studies, Liebmann states that postcolonial studies should be used in emphasizing not just similarities across time and space but also differences—and that postcolonial discourse can be applicable to seemingly endless variances of colonial contexts (Gasco 2005: 72; Liebmann 2010: 11). Putting theory and methodology into practice outside of the academic vacuum can rebut concerns about social inequalities in regard to both academic imperialism and real-world politics. This can be accomplished by involving descendant communities and non- western ways of knowing in research (Atalay 2006, 2012). Archaeologists and anthropologists in particular should remember that their work is not apolitical and has real world impacts and repercussions. Concerns about the Western hegemony over discourse can be seen as another effect of colonialism’s pervasive nature; it affects not just colonized peoples, but Western cultures (the colonizers) as a whole.
Liebmann suggests that the further acceptance of “third-world” scholars as voices in western discourse should be preferred over a separate, “de-westernized” postcolonial theory—asserting that the idea of “pristine scholarship” just results in
“academic apartheid” (Liebmann 2010:12). Claims that postcolonial studies ignore the materiality of colonialism (both past and present) hinge on the discipline’s focus on “colonial discourses, language, and representation” (Liebmann 2010: 12). This critique points to postcolonialism as a distraction from the legacy and manifestations of colonial injustice in “capitalist-modernity” (Liebmann 2010: 13).
18 However, archaeology seeks to bridge the gap between the material and the discursive. While it certainly cannot put these concerns to rest, it does aid in forming a material/historical context that supports and informs the representational one (Liebmann 2010: 13).
Analytical Definitions
For the sake of clarification and a proper situating within a postcolonial framework, theoretical and disciplinary terminology used throughout this work are defined and discussed here. The disciplines of Indigenous studies and archaeology have suffered from the continued use of colonialist terminology to describe interactions between Native and European peoples.
The term “contact” is commonly used for the period of earliest colonial engagement in New England and elsewhere, and southern New England is no exception. However, this work uses the term sparingly given its problems. The term oversimplifies the ongoing interactions and complexity of these pluralistic encounters, emphasizing “short-term encounters over long-term entanglements” and downplaying the “radically different levels of political power that structured those relationships” and the spectrum of cultural oppression experienced by the colonized
(Silliman 2005: 56, 58; Loren 2008). Lightfoot (1995: 200) describes these social environments as “involving one or more Native populations, European peoples of varied nationalities” and socio-religious worldviews. He goes on to explain that often enough, people did not just maintain their own groups; they “lived, worked,
19 socialized, and procreated” together (1995: 201) The term “contact” also implies little impact on each group’s respective culture and identity, crediting “predefined and almost essentialized cultural traits over creative, creolized, or novel cultural products”
(Silliman 2005: 56). In reality, culture contact was an ongoing process, which affected and influenced all parties involved, not just Native people (Dietler 2005;
Loren 2008; Silliman 2005) and often in ways that other terms might better capture.
Western studies and characterizations of “colonialism” can be problematic as well, primarily because they have tended to connote Western hegemony over Native cultures and dichotomize and essentialize notions of the “colonizer” and the
“colonized.” European colonial enterprises were faced with their own internal problems, and are not well represented by the homogenous façade that history books paint (Jordan 2009; Stoler 1989). This misrepresents something that was “not a unitary project, but a fractured one with contradictions… exhausted by internal debates as much as by the resistance of the colonized” (Thomas 1994: 51). Native people have also been widely represented as backwards, savage, and barbarian groups ill equipped (e.g., inferior technology, organization, and religion) to stop colonizers from seizing their labor and resources.
The study of colonialism as an academic pursuit is also historically problematic, as scholarly work in this subject area has been dominated by people of
European descent—leaving little room for alternate concepts of time and cosmology
(Dietler 2005). The general public is greatly informed by what trickles down from the ivory tower of academia. Native groups have suffered from erasure,
20 misrepresentation, and the continued use of the schismatic terms “history” and “pre- history” which disavow Native oral histories and other traditional ways of knowing
(Jordan 2009). Colonialism is not something that happened in the 16th and 17th centuries; it is an ongoing process of disenfranchisement today (Patterson 2008).
In order to more appropriately discuss colonial contexts in Plymouth, I employ some postcolonial terminology that better captures the complexity and fluidity of these experiences. “Multiethnic” is used to describe groups more accurately, as both the English settlers and regional Native people were not homogenous entities in and of themselves and did not remain in separate spheres once settlers arrived. Better suited to this work are disciplinary terminology and concepts used to describe and acknowledge the melding, mixing, and adaption of cultural beliefs, materials, and practices (Jordan 2009: 32; Silliman 2009, 2010a). These terms include “entanglement”, which better accounts for the process of long-term and on- going encounters over short-term contact; “creolization” and “hybridity”, which describe creative and novel cultural products; and “reappropriation”, which characterizes how people (particularly Native people) used and made sense of foreign groups and their material culture using traditional cosmologies and/or practices
(Silliman 2005).
These terms help to better reflect what some theorists refer to as colonialism’s culture—the entwining of groups and their histories in processes that are both destructive and creative, “replacing bounded notions of autonomous groups with individuals negotiating cultural practices and discourses in multiethnic setting”
21 (Silliman 2005: 68). It is important to recognize that cultural “intertwining” and the concept of “shared histories” is not intended to be viewed as a unification or homogenization of peoples. These terms should not be conflated with complete unification; the “existence of ‘shared histories’ and ‘shared identities’ does not mean that there can ever be, or should ever be, a single account of those histories or identities” (Murray 2004: 215).
Finally, my interpretive stance is that objects are “ambiguous”. As Voss points out, this does not mean that my interpretive approach is “‘anything goes’”; to be clear, this analysis seeks to address artifacts in a way that explores meaning outside of the typical either/or categorization of European/non-European (Voss 2008:
885). Voss reminds us to consider not just “the material, technological, and stylistic attributes”, but also archaeological contexts, multiple scales of social relationships and practice to reveal the ways in which an object was “produced, circulated, and used” (Voss 2008: 885-886). This focus on ambiguity and multiple uses is what leads me to employ practice theory as an appropriate framework for this analysis (Silliman
2010a).
Practice Theory: A Multiscalar Approach
Practice theory can be used to link day-to-day objects and actions to the deeper production and reproduction of underlying conscious and subconscious social structures. This is especially true in multiethnic settings, where identity, power, and boundaries between individuals and groups are especially fluid—meaning that they
22 shift and vary as individuals move and interact with one another through time and space (Nassaney 2004). Pierre Bourdieu’s conception of habitus and Anthony
Giddens ideas about structuration are foundational notions for this theory (Bourdieu
1977, Giddens 1979). Voss explains Giddens’ argument that macroscale social forms, such as the colonial empire, are made up of “interlaced networks of meso- and microscale social relationships” and that “domination is never inevitable or unresisted but instead must be actively created and enforced through social interactions that take on many forma and operate on multiple scales” (Voss 2008: 885).
This analysis uses artifacts and contextualizes them using textual and comparative archaeological resources to allow multi-scalar approach to interpretation and therefore the opportunity to presence Native people at these sites (Lightfoot et al.
2008). Similar work has been done for other 16th-, 17th-, and 18th-century colonial
New England sites; successfully accentuating and nuancing larger cultural change
(and continuity) by focusing on the implications of the small-scale items of everyday life (Goodby 2002; Loren 2010; Rubertone 2001; Silliman 2009; Voss 2008). This multi-scalar approach hinges on the pervasive nature of colonialism as an ongoing process that shaped and re-shaped the way in which individuals and groups defined themselves, the world, and their relationships and interactions with others.
Practice theory enables an interpretation that detects Native presence at colonial sites, and provides an entry for discussions about Native agency and cultural continuity through creolization, hybridity, and re-appropriation of material culture
(Silliman 2010a). In these instances, the material culture of one group is selected for
23 the unique purposes of another. It is not the material culture that holds the meaning; it is the practice that imbues the material with meaning. Silliman (2009: 216) explains
“[o]bjects are constituents and proxies of practice not obvious symbols or meanings without them.” Practice theory allows for multiple meanings and more fluid interpretations. This thesis specifically focuses on Native preference for and rejection of European objects, materials, and forms as utilized for Native functions and meaning. The analysis also tracks the ways that objects in practice can be used to defy categorizations and meanings based solely on their origins and, simultaneously, that these same objects serve to presence cultural difference even when not necessarily indicating physical presence of individuals from those cultural groups. It is through this contextualized interpretation of objects that we can better understand colonial-Native interactions not as unilateral acts of European domination, but as relationships where power and identity were negotiated through the exchange and reappropriation of material culture.
Operationally, this analysis relies on the notion that it is not only individuals that affect the material world, but that inversely, the material world can affect and even “transform” individuals (Stahl 2010). Stahl’s concept of ‘material histories’ highlights materiality’s role in “how history as a socio-historical process was lived.”
Understanding these processes and how material culture influenced them is important, especially in multi-ethnic contexts (Stahl 2010: 151). Practice theory (and notions of habitus) and historical documentation can be joined into an analytical approach that can be used to interpret multiple meanings and “messages from
24 ….[artifact] makers and users” (Deetz 1977: 4; Stahl 2010). This framework allows for interpretations that recognize that ambiguous objects and materials (as indicated by the document-based contextualization) such as European spoons, knives, and copper alloy sheet were not “stable entities” and may have acquired complex genealogies and multiple meanings as they crossed cultural lines as active agents in multi-cultural entanglements (Stahl 2010: 158). This type of broadened interpretation that permits objects to possess multiple possible meanings is especially important on colonial sites where signposts of interaction are often ambiguous and overlooked.
25 CHAPTER 3
CULTURAL BACKGROUND
This chapter describes the lifeways of the Native peoples of southern New
England during the time frames designated by Western scholars as the “Woodland” and “Contact” periods, as these set up the context for the Plymouth case under analysis. These temporal designations are based on widespread changes in settlement pattern and technological development and should not be seen as universal rulings, but as general guidelines. The Native peoples of southern New England (Eastern
Algonquians) can be referred to as a whole by the term, Ninnimissinouk. This
Narragansett word, translating roughly to ‘people,’ includes the tribal groups of
Pawtucket, Massachusett, Nipmuck, Poctumtuck, Narragansett, Pokanoket (or
Wampanoag), Niantic, Mohegan, and Pequot, along with others from western
Connecticut and Long Island (Bragdon 1996: xi). This term reflects commonalities including some cosmological beliefs, the Algonquin language family, and shared or intertwining histories (Marten 1970). Despite similarities, this regional grouping is not intended to indicate total cultural homogeneity as differing economic and social structures developed to create complex groups that could be further divided (Bragdon
1996: xii).
26
Early Woodland (3000-2000 B.P.)
Archaeologically, few identified sites explicitly date to the Early Woodland period. This lack of sites was previously interpreted as population decline, but more recent scholarship indicates that the “apparent dramatic decrease of early Woodland sites may be a misperception due to the…chronological limits…assigned to small stemmed [lithic] materials” (DePaoli et al. 2007: 26; see also Binzen et al. 2008;
Thorban et al. 1980). Trends from the Late Archaic, such as population increase, are now thought to have continued into the Early Woodland. Ceramics and the beginning of crop cultivation are major technological additions of this period. However, evidence now suggests that cultigens were not a major component of Native diet until about 1500 years after ceramics were introduced. The slow movement toward a less migratory lifestyle may have had impacts on food gathering techniques, as groups developed a “semi-sedentary settlement system” (Binzen et al. 2008: 21). Settlements were oriented along the coast or other bodies of water for close proximity to fish, sea dwelling mammals, and fowl. Ceremonial goods found in burial contexts point to a complex society with a social order and cosmological traditions. Exotic materials found in these contexts indicate the influnce of the Hopewellian mortuary ceremonialism through vast trade systems from the Midwest (Bragdon 1996: 35;
Binzen et al. 2008: 21; Kerber et al. 1989).
27 Middle Woodland (2000 -1000 B.P)
While acknowledging the challenges in identifying Early Woodland period sites, Middle Woodland sites seem more numerous and have been located in varied environmental conditions (DePaoli et al. 2007: 27). Compared to known Early
Woodland sites, Middle Woodland sites are more diverse in location, but still cluster on interior riverine and coastal locations that would have been close to food sources.
The Early Woodland movement toward larger settlements and longer-term occupation most likely continued during this time (Binzen et al. 2008; DePaoli et al.
2007: 27). While archaeological evidence for the centralization process is scarce, the earilest known large shell middens in the region date to this time. This supports the notion that groups were becoming interested in more permenent settlement toward the coast (Binzen et al. 2008: 22; Bragdon 1996: 34).
Technological advancements include the likely continuation of cxperimentation with horticulture, although there is no archaeological evidence of this. More complex and elaborate decoration on ceramics defines this period in archaeological contexts (Binzen et al. 2008: 22). Lithics in this period include Fox
Creek stemmed, Lanceolate, and Jack’s Reef Corner Notched points. Small triangular points are also introduced at this time as part of the bow and arrow. Trading networks continue to be extensive with lithics made out of non-local materials from the Boston
Basin and beyond (Binzen et al. 2008: 22; DePaoli et al. 2007: 27). Exotics indicate that at least coastal peoples were activily part of the wider Late Hopwellian “world system.” These materials include “copper from the Great Lakes, mica from Tennesee,
28 and shells and shell beads from the entire east coast” (Bragdon 1996: 35; see also
Ceci 1990). Despite increased access to exotics, fewer elaborate burials have been recorded from this time in comparrison to the Early Woodland period (Binzen et al.
2008). The reason for this is unknown.
Late Woodland (1000-400 B.P.)
Regional groups were dynamic and fluid, each establishing their own societies with differing practices in regard to food acquisition, settlement patterns, and sociopolitical organization (Johnson 2000: 156). Foraging and hunting practices continued to dominate diet during this time. Population increase may have begun to strain preferred resources, such as fish and fowl, as the archaeological evidence shows an expanding diet during this time. As part of this expansion, horticultural practices spread, creating a growing reliance on domesticates such as pumpkin, cucumbers, tobacco, and especially maize. This reified the movement toward larger permanent settlements, particularly on the coast (Massachusetts Historical
Commission 1981a: 5). However, this model has been called into question, as “corn is infrequently found at sites in New England” and evidence for horticulture is lacking in general (Binzen et al. 2008: 23; see also Luedtke 1988; Thorban 1988).
“Granaries,” or pits representing the storage of significant amounts of grain, are the only evidence of horticulture. The lack of archaeological evidence may just be the
“product of a highly adaptable population [of] mobile farmers,” or the destruction and covering of sites along the coast through modern land development over the past few
29 hundred years (Binzen et al. 2008). Some scholars have countered that heavy reliance on maize and larger coastal settlements may have been, in fact, a reaction to European contact (Bragdon 1996: 38; see also Ceci 1990: 2-3).
Bragdon argues that environmental diversity at the end of the Late Woodland and the arrival of Europeans (late 15th and 16th centuries) greatly influenced the beginning of wampum production and use and the introduction and trade of European goods. This system would have encouraged larger, hierarchical settlement patterns
(Binzen et al. 2008: 24). The Ninnimissinouk would not have conceived of themselves as explicitly bounded by territory or group; a more correct notion of this complex society would be a “confederation of autonomous communities” making up the larger body of a tribe (Johnson 2000: 162). These groups were socially connected to one another through kinship ties and ritualized reciprocal exchanges designed to keep wealth and stability evenly distributed (Salisbury 1982: 50).
The Arrival of Europeans (A.D. 1492-1620)
Scholars disagree about the extent to which Native life was altered during the early period of contact with Europeans. The earliest interactions were predominantly with Italian, Portuguese, and French explorers and fisherman in the late 1400s and throughout the 1500s. Early European accounts found Native people to be
“ceremonious, eager to trade, hospitable, [and] curious (e.g. Brereton 1968: 43)”
(Bragdon 1996: 6). Many propose that contact was somewhat limited and did not affect traditional ways of life until the late 16th and early 17th centuries with the
30 establishment of trading forts, which were intended to be at least semi-permanent
(Grumet 1995: 62). During that time trade became less casual and more systematic,
European material culture was adopted into Native life via trading networks, and
European diseases were introduced (Depaoli et al. 2007: 33; Salisbury 1982).
Subsistence and settlement patterns were disrupted as they shifted to focus on procuring more furs for trade—further engendering dependence on European goods, and creating competition for trade opportunities amongst Native people themselves
(Salisbury 1982: 50, 55). As time elapsed, accounts indicate that some Native people grew wary, suspicious of, and even violent toward Europeans (Bragdon 1996: 6).
Undoubtedly, this hostility was a reaction to European behavior, as they refused “to enter into and maintain reciprocal relationships,” which were fundamental to Native economic, political, and spiritual ways of life (Salisbury 1982: 109). This fundamental disjuncture of social practices between Europeans and Native people in combination with repeated abduction, violence, and introduction of foreign pathogens seriously undermined Native ways of life (Bragdon 1996; Salisbury 1982).
An epidemic, described by European accounts simply as “The Plague,” swept
New England between 1616 and 1618 devastating Native populations (Binzen et al.
2008; Bragdon 1996; Salisbury 1982). Entire villages along the New England coast were wiped out by disease while remaining others were severely devastated, including the Wampanoag territory of Patuxet, which includes parts of modern-day
Kingston and Plymouth (Marten 1970: 3). Early 17th-century explorers observed
Patuxet as nothing but abandoned fields and settlements at Town Brook, the Eel
31 River, and Watson’s Hill (Binzen et al. 2008; see also Herbester et al. 1995;
Massachusetts Historical Commission 1981a). While it is not possible to accurately assess the mortality rate for the region, scholars agree that it was substantial; some suggest up to 90 percent of the estimated population of 90,000 may have succumbed to disease (Binzen et al. 2008; Bragdon 1996: 25; Grumet 1995: 62; Salisbury 1982; see also Gookin 1806).
Relations with the English Separatists of Plymouth Colony
In the early fall of 1620, 102 men, women, and children set sail from England aboard the Mayflower for the New World (Deetz and Deetz 2000: 36). They were unique in their purpose, as most ventures up until that time had been looking to cash in on the transportable commodities of the New World. The fur trade and the fishing industries were the two largest draws, both of which were primarily seasonal ventures. These expeditions were typically comprised of all-male crews (plantation adventurers, indentured servants, and soldiers), who aimed to return home with full pockets. Few had any intention to stay permanently, and those that did often met incredible hardship or failure (e.g. Roanoke, Jamestown, Popham). The Mayflower passengers were unique in that they were not in search of cargo to take back to
England; they were looking for a new home (Salisbury 1982).
The impetus of this adventure was actually more than a decade before the
Mayflower’s voyage, when a small congregation of Puritan Separatists decided to leave their home of Scrooby, Nottinghamshire, England in 1607 for the more tolerant
Holland (Deetz and Deetz 2000: 34; Demos 2000: 3). After settling in Leiden for
32 about 12 years, the group decided that the New World offered economic, religious, and cultural autonomy that Holland could never provide (Salisbury 1982: 111-112).
Thirty members of this group would be the first to embark as partners in a London- based joint stock company (Demos 2000: 4-5). This group of “adventurers” was actually primarily comprised of non-separatist “strangers,” some of who made
“mutinous speeches” on the voyage over, but leadership by William Bradford, Isaac
Allerton, and Edward Winslow was firmly established before landfall at Plymouth
Harbor (Bradford 1970: 75-77; Demos 2000: 5; Salisbury 1982: 111-112). This leadership was affirmed and cemented as all of the Mayflower hopefuls elected to
“Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic” under the historic Mayflower Compact (Bradford 1970: 75-77; Salisbury 1982: 111-112). It is without a doubt that the Separatist leaders had planned their hegemony over both their fellow passengers and Native population, hiring Captain Myles Standish to provide the necessary military structure and support they would need to secure and govern their new home (Salisbury 1982: 112).
The arrival of the Mayflower in 1620 came at a vulnerable for the
Wampanoag people as a whole—disease had decimated their numbers but left their enemies to the south, the Narragansett, relatively intact. The Plymouth colonists estimated that the Pokanoket had about 60 men at the time that the treaty between the two groups was signed in 1621, as compared to the approximation made by
Champlain in 1608 of 650 to 800 men. Massasoit, their sachem, must have grappled with a multiplicity of anxieties and uncertainties as he decided how to approach these
33 newcomers. The Wampanoag’s previous encounters with Englishmen had been largely negative, and had included outright hostility and the kidnapping of their own people (Salisbury 1982: 101; Vaughan 1995: 6-7; e.g. accounts of John Smith and
Thomas Hunt). Were these settlers a new source of disease or violence and subjugation? Would the Narragansett take advantage of their weakened condition? It is almost without doubt that Massasoit’s alliance with the settlers was a politically strategic move, a risk he took to hopefully preserve and strengthen his remaining people (Marten 1970; Salisbury 1982).
Initially, the settler’s contact with Native groups was limited and conveyed hostility as Standish’s men raided stores of corn and disturbed burials upon arrival in
Cape Cod. Their behavior on this three-week layover was considered so outwardly aggressive and intrusive that it resulted in a Native-initiated skirmish the day before the English departed for Plymouth Bay. After taking up residence at the abandoned village of Patuxet, the colonists of New Plymouth made no immediate attempts to peaceably contact any of the local Native groups. It was not until after the first deadly winter had passed, taking half of their party with it, that the colonists realized they were going to need more than just stolen corn to survive in this strange new world
(Salisbury 1982: 112-114).
In March of 1621, the Pokanoket made the first move in establishing a relationship with the Plymouth settlers. With the aid of English speaking Native translators the settlers and Native group, lead by Massasoit, were able to meet and agree upon a treaty. This meeting began with the exchange of goods, corn to the
34 colonists and knives and jewelry for the Native leaders. They then negotiated the terms of a treaty which included: (1) the two parties would aid one another if attacked by an outside group; (2) both parties would disarm when meeting; (3) the Pokanoket should act as political liaisons to other nearby Native groups, ensuring that they also observed these agreed upon terms; and finally, (4) the Pokanoket were required to turn over any Native person who attacked an Englishmen (Salisbury 1982: 116-118).
Salisbury claims that this meeting was filled with assumptions and underlying motives for both parties (Salisbury 1982: 114-116). To the English, this treaty ensured control over the Native population in their surrounding region via Massasoit as their political agent; to them, this was a treaty of Native submission. This assumed supremacy can be seen in the liberty taken by the English with the agreed-upon terms, violating them frequently, especially in regard to disarming. Differences in accounts of the verbal agreement between the parties and the written treaty even suggest that the colonists may have taken advantage of the illiteracy of their new Native “friends.”
To the Pokanoket, this treaty was a meeting of equals, made official through the speeches and reciprocal exchanges. Behavior and word, not a written document, validated the alliance. Salisbury continues that Massasoit would not have envisioned as himself the hand of the English; Native leadership did not give authority to force other groups to bend to the whims of foreign colonial groups (1982: 114-116).
Massasoit must have seen this agreement as a way to gain a strong ally, access to the hunting grounds around the English settlement, and better access to trade goods. This would have enabled him to garner more respect and tribute from other regional
35 groups, strengthening his leadership’s influence—and hopefully convincing most groups in the region to cooperate with the English. This encounter and the two vastly different cultural perceptions of it set the stage for a relationship of misunderstanding, mistrust, and subsequent hostilities to come (Salisbury 1982).
Sentiments between these two groups fluctuated greatly between the signing of the treaty in 1621 and the absorption of Plymouth into the Massachusetts Bay
Colony in 1691, but it is fair to say that the exchange of goods and the desire to exchange goods greatly shaped the long-term trajectory of the fledgling colony and its
Native neighbors. In the beginning, the colonists primarily traded for corn and furs, sometimes finding that there was not enough of either to satisfy their needs or desires
(Salisbury 1982). The aggressive nature with which the settlers sometimes pursued, and even forced, regional Native groups into exchange or submission alienated potential trading partners (Salisbury 1982: 120-141). One account recalls a party of colonial men who forced a group of Native women to cook for them and then trade the furs off their backs, leaving them nearly naked and obviously uncomfortable
(Salisbury 1982: 120-121). On another occasion, Captain Myles Standish threated to kill an entire group of Native people when he discovered some beads and other
“trifles” had been stolen while stopped on a trading expedition (Salisbury 1982: 122-
123). Standish and his men also killed seven Native leaders under the pretense of peaceful negotiation at a nearby English encampment (unrelated to Plymouth) upon even hearing rumor of a Native uprising. These types of interactions, along with other obvious displays of aggressive military development, such as building a fort and
36 palisade wall and forming a militia, created fear among Native groups, some of who fled (Salisbury 1982).
During the first few years of establishing Plymouth, the colonists found themselves unable to grow enough corn to sustain themselves, and realized that they were ill-equipped to participate in the lucrative fishing industry (Cranmer 1994: 17-
18). After a few expeditions, they decided that the fur trade provided the best opportunity for them to possibly pay off their debts to the London Adventurers.
Unfortunately, Plymouth’s location did not provide access to the thick winter pelts of animals who lived north and inland, and the colonists had already managed to alienate many of the local Native groups and lacked the better quality trade goods of their
Dutch neighbors (Cranmer 1990: 18; Salisbury 1982: 140).
By the mid-1620s Plymouth was endeavoring, with some success, to improve its situation. They implemented a new farming system that provided not only enough corn for them, but also produced a surplus for trade, helping to offset the lesser quality of their trade goods (Cranmer 1994: 20). They also worked on improving relationships with surrounding Native groups and broadening their alliances by setting up trading posts away from the colony to gain access to better furs. These posts also allowed for the interception of some of the business usually done with the
Dutch, who had an established settlement south of Plymouth (Salisbury 1982: 141-
147). By 1631 the English settlers had established at least five outpost-trading houses in New England.
37 The Dutch introduced Plymouth to the use of wampum for trade and became their major supplier of the shell beads. Wampum was only produced to the south in modern-day Connecticut and was controlled primarily by the Pequot there and the
Narragansett in modern-day Rhode Island. The strings of white and “black” (purple) beads were traditionally for Native people in respected positions, but the beads caught on as a widely consumed product through both European and Native producers and distributors (Marten 1970: 15; Salisbury 1982: 147-151). Wampum made more practical sense as a trade good for Plymouth as it could be traded year-round without seasonal fluctuations. Corn, on the other hand, was in its greatest abundance and worth after the fall harvest, the time when pelts are at their thinnest and of littlest value. Wampum enabled the settlers to procure thick winter coats with a more stable
“currency.” Once successfully introduced by the settlers, northern and inland Native groups were dependent on the traders as the only means of procuring the shell beads and other desired European goods (Salisbury 1982: 151-152).
In the early 1630s things began to shift politically for both Europeans and
Native as more English immigrants arrived with full intentions to stay. Dutch hegemony over trading soon became an issue. Until this point, the Dutch operated primarily south of Plymouth in Narragansett Bay and on the Long Island Sound with little competition. Control over the Pequot and Narragansett territories, and therefore the supply and distribution of wampum, had been primarily out of default. They had little colonial military infrastructure, relying on Native desire and growing
38 dependence on trade goods and the ability of their local Native partners to organize trade networks.
As the Colony continued to expand, their trading with the Abenaki to the north gained a new competitor, Massachusetts Bay Colony. Plymouth began to consider opportunities to extend their trading operations westward and consider the tenuous holdings of their southern Dutch neighbors. The newly established Massachusetts
Bay Colony had managed to make trading arrangements with the Narragansett through their nearest allies the Massachusetts and the Pawtucket. Plymouth used these new ties of their fellow countrymen to mend their own failed relationships with the
Narragansett. Suddenly, the Dutch had real competition. New Netherland’s relinquishment of control began when their immediate partners, the Narragansett, entered a war with the Pequot. This meant that the Dutch lost their access to the
Pequot wampum producers in Connecticut. This divorced alliance, along with subsequent changes in the Native political environment and a preexisting distaste for
Dutch hegemony, weakened New Netherland greatly. Through a series of politically and geographically strategic land acquisitions, a better established military, and new
Native alliances, the English were finally able to displace their Dutch rivals.
Plymouth’s trading endeavors were at their most profitable by the mid-1630s
(Cranmer 1990: 1; Salisbury 1982: 203).
By early the 1640s, a series of events, both internal and external, helped solidify the growing number of English settlements into a fairly united “New
England.” The Pequot War of 1636-1637 suppressed any Native hope of regaining
39 the region from the settlers and helped reunite the English. Internal problems and fractions had begun to wear on the Puritan ideals that once bound them together
(Salisbury 1982: 215-225). A common enemy reignited Puritanical zeal and notions of a “divine mission”—the Pequot, as representatives of Satan, were scattered and decimated in a most merciless way, with many men, women, children, and elders slain, sold into slavery, and in one instance, burned alive (Salisbury 1982: 220).
Between their crusades against any who might stand against them, their efforts toward Christian conversion, and periodic epidemics, the English as a whole were an overwhelming force, one that continued to grow and demand further Native submission.
Plymouth, albeit more reluctant than some of the other settlements, did become embroiled in the overarching affairs of New England. The fur trade had rapidly declined and the acquisition of land for settlement and resources became of paramount importance. Regardless of their unified front with respect to squelching
Native anti-English sentiments, the colonies were also in fierce competition with one another in carving up the remaining coastline and expanding westward inland
(Salisbury 1982: 220-235). Agriculture, livestock, and numerous other industries had boomed along with the English population; land replaced furs as the most desirable commodity that Native people had to offer. Native groups outright sold their land or agreed to “treaties” which essentially resulted in the same loss of traditional land use
(Salisbury 1982: 226-235). Material culture in the same forms as were popular during the fur trade dominate these recorded land transactions. Slowly, many Native
40 American groups persisted only in small enclaves often on reservations. Larger more autonomous groups were allowed to persist only under the protection of a colonial entity that had vested interests in their Native allies for various kinds of labor and other resources; such was the case with the Pokanoket and Plymouth (Salisbury 1982:
236-239). Whatever autonomy and land was left in in Native possession was largely taken during and after King Philip’s War in the mid-1670s. The organizational underpinnings of Native society had been “all but obliterated” (Salisbury 1982: 238).
The historical narrative that I have outlined is an important part of the contextualization in this archaeological analysis. Archaeological sites are not formed in a vacuum; the people, events, architecture, and daily practices at the Winslow,
R.M., and Allerton sites were informed, shaped, and actively influenced by the larger socio-political and religious milieu of burgeoning New England. Furthermore, in this section, I have briefly explored the relationship between Native New England groups and encroaching Europeans, highlighting issues of disease and depopulation, dispossession of land, and acts of racialization and genocide. This narrative is not intended to further purvey notions of the “vanishing Indian” or as another retelling of the political domination of Europeans over the Americas, but as poignant backdrop for the discussion of material culture as a means of communication, Native agency, and the negotiation of power.
Politically, the Native people of southern New England may have been “all but obliterated,” but their individual and collective survival and cultural continuity can be told through their selective use of material culture in the archaeological record,
41 their presence and contribution to the written historical record, and through Native oral traditions which persist into the present day (Salisbury 1982: 238). This works attempts to weave together these types of sources for a well-contextualized analysis of the archaeological data available from the selected sites.
42 CHAPTER 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION
This chapter uses historical documentation and ethnohistorical sources to contextualize artifacts types associated with Native-colonial trade and interaction. It aims to show specific examples of material types recorded as part of trade, to discuss
Native reappropriation of objects and how they fit into Native cosmology, and to describe Plymouth-specific historical accounts of Native people utilizing European objects. It is limited to types present in the collection and does not present all items potentially associated with colonial-Native interaction. The objective is to place these objects in the practices that produced them in the first place, put them into circulation between cultural groups, and then used and discarded them in the deposits under study here. I first discuss items produced by Europeans and commonly associated with European trade such as knives, spoons, beads, tools, and copper kettles. Native- produced materials are then discussed, including ceramics, lithics (and copper counterparts), stone pipes, and shell beads. Basic typological information is also included to aid in identifying and further characterizing 17th-century archaeological sites of trade and interaction.
43 Trade Goods
Copper and Copper Alloy Kettles
The European kettle was one of the first, and arguably the most important, object to ever cross the Atlantic for trade with Native Americans (Dilliplane 1980:
79; de Roever 1980: 88; Turgeon 1997: 9; van Dongen 1996: 115). Native Americans valued them not for their function in food preparation, but as a source of sheet metal for making other things, such as brass points, rolled beads, tinkling cones, pendants, earrings, and more (Turgeon 1997: 10; van Dongen 1996: 125). Until the mid-17th century, kettles were seldom used for cooking by Native Americans— and when they were, it was primarily within ceremonial contexts (Turgeon 1997: 5-10; van Dogen
1996: 159). European copper and its alloys were rapidly reappropriated into Native life, as Native copper was considered scarce and highly precious before European contact. These metals were greatly desired for their reddish hues and reflective qualities, which were symbolic of blood, fertility, and war (Ehrhadt 2005: 76;
Turgeon 1997: 9; van Dogen 1996: 125, 130). Kettles were often cut up and refashioned, but when they were left whole, they were frequently used as grave goods. This practice became more prevalent as access to trade goods increased in the mid- to late 17th century. As grave goods, kettles are most commonly associated with female burials and found near (and even covering) the head of the deceased
(Dilliplane 1980: 81-82; Johannsen 1980: 27).
The kettle’s role in colonial-Native interactions is well documented. They are frequently listed in ship manifests, fort and trading post inventories, personal travel 44 accounts, and Native land deeds (Johannsen 1980: 27; Turgeon 1997: 9). One traveler, Nicholas Deny, wrote, “the kettle always appeared to them [Native
Americans], and still does, [as] the most precious thing they can get from us”
(Turgeon 1997: 10). Kettles were commonly dispersed through trading networks;
William Bradford records being greeted to the New World by a kettle in an abandoned long house before ever making contact with the Wampanoag people (van
Dogen 1996: 136).
Kettles varied in shape, size, and accompanying hardware. At the most basic, they consist of a basin, a rim, and a handle and/or feet as a means of being secured over a fire. Handles and rims may require affixing hardware such as rivets, and ears or lugs. The two most common types of kettles from the 16th and 17th centuries are hemispherical and cylindrical. Hardware was not always made of the same metal as the kettle itself and was sometimes produced separately (van Dongen 1996: 125).
Kettles pre-dating 1600 are primarily copper. Those from 1600 and forward are usually brass, which is a cheaper, more workable, copper alloy made by the addition of zinc and sometimes other metals (van Dongen 1996: 126).
Manipulated and reappropriated copper and copper alloy sheet as harvested from kettles has been recovered archaeologically in a variety of forms throughout
North America (Grumet 1995). Examples of artifacts such as arrow points, tinklers (a small metal item usually attached to the fringe of clothing to catch light and act as a noisemaker), beads, spirals, bracelets, pendants, and earrings have all been recovered in 17th-century Native sites and European trading posts. Examples of these sites
45 include but are not limited to Bark Wigwams and the Purcell site in Massachusetts
(Grumet 1995: 98-130; see also Johnson and Bradley 1987; Schambach and Bailey
1974), Native sites near the trading posts of Plymouth and New Netherland in the lower Connecticut valley (McBride 1984), Ward’s Point and Fort Massapeag in New
York (Grumet 1995: 222-223, 392; see also Jacobson 1980; Solecki 1991), Cushnoc and multiple sites at Norridgewock in Maine (Grumet 1995: 71-85; see also Cowie and Petersen 1992; Cranmer 1990; Prins 1986; Prins and Bourque 1987), and the
Hormell and Smythe sites in New Hampshire (Grumet 1995: 86-99; see also Boisvert
1993; Bradley 1983; D. Foster et al. 1981; Willoughby 1935). Similar materials have been recovered as far away as Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania (Grumet 1995:
247-248, 271, 276, 299; see also Buchanan 1984; MacCord 1977, 1993; Turner
1990).
Glass Beads
Glass beads were one of the most commonly traded and exchanged goods by
Europeans during colonization efforts all over the world and are almost always associated with multicultural encounters—and not with use by Europeans themselves
(Loren 2010: 62). They were often critical in establishing and maintaining trading relationships in New England, as they were highly desired by Native people of the
Northeast (Billings 1980: 120). This predilection was based on aesthetics of the beads themselves and also on the established significance of Native-made shell beads.
Native shell beads, most notably wampum, were considered to be material correlates
46 of “status,” not in the sense of a luxury item indicative of wealth, but as having great ritual and cosmological power (Miller and Hamell 1986: 315). White shell was considered a substance of power that represented “the cognitive aspects of Life and
Light as well as physical, social, and spiritual well being” (Nanepashemet and
Bradley 1996: 35). White was also considered to be the color of “greatest ritual purity and potency” (Nanepashemet and Bradley 1996: 35).
The cosmological and social importance of Native shell beads was applied to their glass counterparts, allowing them to rapidly become an “integral part of Native costume” (Francis 1996: 55). It should be noted that at least initially glass beads were lesser valued than traditional shell beads; this changed greatly with the commercialization of wampum. Emmanual Altham’s account (1623) of Massasoit conveys the early retention of the cosmological significance of Native beads. Altham describes him as wearing nothing but a wolf pelt and “beads about his middle. And these beads they make themselves, which they account as gold above silver before the beads we bring out of England” (Altham 1997: 30).
Glass beads were an important item to colonizers because they were worth much more to Native Americans than the actual cost of production (at least initially).
A trip across the Atlantic inflated their value immensely. They figured prominently in
European accounts of gift exchange, trade for fresh food and furs, and as part of land contracts (Johannsen 1980: 31; e.g. Verrazano, de Rasierses, Hudson, and Bradford accounts). Christopher Columbus gave strings of beads to Native Americans he encountered on his 1492 voyage to the New World and wrote of how eagerly they
47 were accepted and worn. Soon after Columbus’ account, beads were a standard item on European ships voyages headed to the New World (Francis 1996: 54). William
Bradford himself remarked upon the arrival of a shipment of English beads in 1622 that they were in fact, “good trade” (Willoughby 1973: 274).
The two main types of glass beads are drawn (or “tubular”) and wound (or
“wire”). Drawn beads were made by first blowing a bubble into a blob of molten glass on the end of a rod. The blob was then stretched and shaped into a long tube.
The bubble of air in the blob was also stretched in this process, becoming the bore.
The tube is then cooled and broken into bead-sized lengths. This method could potentially produce thousands of beads with one molten glass bubble. Wound beads were made one at a time by winding a thread of molten glass around a heated wire, which was coated in chalk. Drawn and wound beads could be decorated using a number of techniques to affix other colors of glass to the bead and alter the bead’s form through processes that included molding, twisting, marvering, grinding, and polishing (Kidd and Kidd 1970: 48-50). Through these processes bead makers were able to produce an incredible variety of shapes, sizes, forms, and colors.
Glass beads have been implicated in Native-colonial interactions archaeologically throughout New England (Grumet 1995), including Native sites near the colonial trading posts of Plymouth and New Netherland in the lower Connecticut valley (McBride 1984), Mashantucket Pequot sites in Connecticut (Grumet 1995:
142-146; see also McBride 1990d), the Campbell Site in New Hampshire (Grumet
1995: 108; see also Kenyon 1983), and Fort Hill in New Hampshire (Grumet 1995:
48 97-99; see also Thomas 1991). Wider regional site include Fort Massapeag, Fort
Amsterdam, Fort Orange, and Schuyler Flatts in New York (Grumet 1995: 215-217; see also Solecki 1991, Huey 1988a, Huey 1985b). Glass beads have also been recovered in 16th- and 17th-century Native-colonial sites in Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the Carolinas (Grumet 1995).
Clothing and Related Items of Adornment
Textiles, clothing, and associated sewing utensils/items of adornment were common imports. While colonists did perform some processes of cloth production in the New World, many types of textile manufacturing were not easily transported from
Europe. These complications, coupled with the superior quality of imported textiles over domestically produced ones, resulted in most of these goods being imported
(Dillon 1980: 100; de Roever 1996: 79). Many of the fabrics acquired for trade specifically with Native Americans were coarse woolens (Dillion 1980; Loren 2010).
Woolens were a “basic ingredient in the dress of 17th century working men and women” (Dillon 1980: 101). Commonly imported woolen fabrics were often listed as
“carsyes” (“kerseys”), “serge,” “broad cloth,” and “duffels” (“diffels”) or “trucking cloth” (Dillion 1980: 100-101; de Roever 1996: 78-80). Other textiles frequently traded include blankets, cottons, and linens (de Roever 1996: 86).
The Native Americans of southern New England are depicted as wearing textiles in primarily two ways. First, some wore European-style garments, often blending them with Native styles and taste of dress and adornment (Loren 2010;
49 Shannon 1996; St. George 2000). Second, some used a length of cloth as a mantle, probably in conjunction with a smaller piece of the same cloth or of cotton to “cover their secret parts” (Gookin 1970: 17; Dillon 1980: 100-101). It is important to recognize clothing as a “social medium” through which identity and social status can formed and played out (Loren 2010: 1). Messages about status, allegiance, and beliefs could be visually manifested in the way that the body was presented in colonial New
England. For example, Europeans sometimes gave an item of clothing to a Native person as a gift that signified the “prestige of the recipient,” such as when Edward
Winslow gave a red coat to the Wampanoag sachem, Massasoit (Dillion 1980: 104,
106). Coats were also sometimes given out as “rewards for various types of services”
(Dillon 1980: 104), or traded for pelts (Grumet 1995: 91)
Clothing was also an important outward sign of the processes of
Christianization, as nakedness was linked with “sin and barbarism” (Loren 2010: 30,
44; see also Silverman 2005: 191). Records also illustrate varied levels of acceptance of European cloth and clothing amongst Native Americans over time and even highlight Native preferences in color and ornamentation (de Roever 1996: 78). Native people also used ribbons, lace, gold and silver threaded silk trimmings, buttons, thimbles, pins, needles, and scissors to adorn and alter both traditional Native and
European style clothing— subverting European intentions of acculturation and to create what Turner refers to as a “social skin” (Dillion 1980: 106; Loren 2001, 2010;
Turner 1993 [1980]).
50 Textile-related items, and not the fabrics themselves, are typically what survive in the archaeological record. Archaeological data and documentary accounts provide evidence that textile-related items were valued and used in distinctly Native ways. Thimbles are a commonly reappropriated item; many have been found with a hole pierced through the crown and used as a tinker or small bell on the fringe of a piece of clothing (Brain 1979: 188). Scissors, awls, and needles have been found as grave goods in burial contexts such as Burr’s Hill and in the Rhode Island 1000 burial ground. Burials from the Rhode Island 1000 contain remnants of fabrics used to wrap the deceased and in some instances to bundle grave goods. These fabrics are both
European- and Native-produced textiles, some of which show evidence of being ceremonially smeared with red ochre (Dillon 1980; Rubertone 2001).
Leads seals are sometimes the only indication of textile trade at a site. These were used by Europeans to tamperproof, authenticate, and document the payment of excise tax on goods (McMahan 2014; de Roever 1996: 79). It has even been recorded that Native people saw the seals themselves as “precious objects” (de Roever 1996:
79). Lead seal blanks were produced by pouring molten lead into small molds and allowing them to set. The resulting discs may have included small hollow channels for the cordage or string used to secure packages. The discs were clamped by a boulloterion, “a pincer-like implement with disc-shaped jaws engraved with an inscription and/or image” (McMahan 2014). If decipherable, markings on seals can be used to determine the type of good and merchant or manufacturer (McMahan
2014). Lead seals were recovered from the Plymouth trading post at Cushnoc on the
51 Kennebec (Cranmer 1990) and from the Jesuit mission at Norridgewock in Maine
(Grumet 1995: 83), and at numerous Seneca-Dutch sites including the Seneca Steele and Powerhouse sites (Loren 2008: 101, see also Baart 2012).
Buttons, pins, buckles, and other clothing fasteners are some of the more functional and potentially decorative items on clothing and common artifacts (White
2005: 50). These types of items are seen commonly on requisition lists for colonial
America, and were desired by Europeans and Native people alike. For instance, documents from Fort Pentagoet dating to 1675 specifically request clothing and related merchandise including 300 linen shirts, 60 caps, 50 taffeta cravats, 30 pairs of shoes, and buttons for jerkins and camisoles (Loren 2008: 99; see Faulkner and
Faulkner 1987: 250).
Buckles were used to fasten shoes, breeches, hats, collars, and girdles (Loren
2008: 99), and have been recovered from Native American archaeological contexts
(Grumet 1995: 260-262). Pins from Colonial American contexts are most commonly made of brass coated with tin. They were used for sewing, as clothing fasteners, and to affix objects of adornment to clothing (Noël Hume 1969: 254). Buttons and other fasteners have been linked to Native people in the documentary record through descriptions of the blending of European and traditional dress. As an example, in
1602, the English explorer, Gosnald, recounts seeing six Micmacs in a small vessel, one of which was wearing a waistcoat, breeches, stockings, and shoes—an outfit requiring the use of many fastening items (Loren 2010). As stated before, thimbles were sometimes pierced or modified in other ways by Native Americans to be used as
52 tinkling cones, or other objects or adornment (Beaudry 2006; Brain 1979: 188;
Karklins 1992; Loren 2008).
Buttons in the 17th century are usually associated with European men’s clothing, as European women’s clothing was typically “fastened with lacings, pins, or hooks and eyes” (White 2005: 57). Buttons encompass various styles, materials, and manufacturing techniques (for a discussion of these, see White 2005). Although most buttons during the 16th and 17th centuries would have been imported, there is evidence of local manufacturing in the Americans by Native Americans (Loren 2010: 49-54).
Stone molds for making lead or brass buttons have been recovered archaeologically; one excellent example is from a Wampanoag burial context in Kingston,
Massachusetts, which also included several lead buttons produced from the mold
(Loren 2008: 99, 2010: 49-54; see also Willoughby 1973). There is also much evidence in both archaeological and ethnographic collections for the use of buttons strictly as a means of adornment in both Native and African colonial sites across
North America (Loren 2010; see also Bianchi and Bianco 2006).
Seventeenth-century scissors were comprised of two opposing blades with extending arms joined at a pivot in the center by pin, rivet or washer (Beaudry 2006:
116-118; Noël Hume 1969: 267). Handles at the ends of the arms are sometimes called loops or bows (Beaudry 2006:116). In her extensive research on sewing implements, Beaudry remarks that most archaeological site assemblages will only contain a “single pair of all-purpose utility scissors...[I]t is rare that a site produces multiple pairs” (Beaudry 2006: 133). Native Americans in the Northeast are also
53 known to have used scissors as a means of cutting copper kettles and ceremonially as grave goods (Gibson 1980) and have been found archaeologically in association with sheet metal (Grumet 1995: 277, 397). They have also been found in association with other sewing and clothing related materials at known trading locations such as Fort
Michilimackinac (Moran 1994: 69).
Iron Implements
The archaeological and documentary records suggest that iron tools as utilitarian items were sometimes not initially in as much demand as items that held cosmological significance such as beads and copper (Hamell 1986: 314). However, they were often used as gifts alongside other cosmologically charged items to establish trading relationships, and quickly became popular. The colonists at
Plymouth gave a knife to the first Native American they encountered, and bestowed the same gift upon Massasoit and his brother upon their first meeting (Groce 1980:
108; Johannsen 1980: 31). Emmanuel Altham, a trader and visitor to Plymouth, indicated in a letter/merchandise request in 1625, that above all of the things he had requested, the knives and beads were most desired by Native Americans (James 1997:
58).
Tools encompass a wide range of goods—most commonly knives/blades, axes, hoes, files, awls, and fishhooks. Less common items include hammers, nails, horseshoes, chains, and keys (Fiore 1980: 96; Johannsen 1980: 28). Scholars propose that Native people more readily accepted iron implements with Native-made
54 equivalents in use before Europeans arrived. These items, such as ax heads and knives, were used functionally in both familiar European and distinctly Native ways
(Fiore 1980: 96). Other, less commonly traded items, may have been adopted primarily for ritual or ceremonial purposes, as they did not have pre-existing functional equivalents (Fiore 1980: 96). Tools were also often modified to better serve specific needs (Bradley 2006; Rubertone 2001: 34).
Iron tools were commonly used as grave goods in the mid-17th century.
Examples from the Rode Island 1000 burial ground show tools in burial contexts of both men and women. Male items such as “knives, adzes, and craft–related tools” reflected individual activities and roles as men (Rubertone 2001: 161). Female grave goods include iron awls and hoes (Rubertone 2001: 157). European knives, files, nails, axes, assorted utensils, swords, chisels, and celts have also been recovered from known Native-colonial contexts sites in New York (i.e. Jacobson 1980), Virginia (i.e.
Hodges 1986, Hodges and McCartney 1986), and Pennsylvania (i.e. Kent 1984)
(Grumet 1995).
A historical account by Edward Winslow records knives and other goods being consumed in a fire as part of a sacrificial ritual, showing another traditionally
Native use of European goods (Johannsen 1980: 27). William Bradford’s writings recall the theft of unattended iron tools during the early construction of Plymouth by local Native people before contact was made. Samoset, a Native person familiar with the English and their language, visited the English soon after the incident, and
55 subsequently facilitated the first formal meeting with the Wampanoag people in which the stolen tools were returned (Morrison: 1970).
Spoons
Before the arrival of Europeans, Native people made their own “scoop-like” spoons out of available materials (Beaudry 1980: 72). These were used as part of food preparation and consumption, but also ritualistically as grave goods. European spoons adopted by Native people were used in the same traditional ways and were especially attractive because of the added cosmological significance of metal (Beaudry 1980:
72; Rubertone 2001). Other spoons (both Native and European made) recovered from the Rhode Island 1000 burials were found in the graves of both men and women.
They were often positioned in the hands, or on the chest of the deceased; bowls were directed at the chest or face. Rubertone states that this position highlights the traditional cosmological importance of the spoon in this instance. The bright and reflective bowl of the spoon was situated to mirror the “anatomical site of the soul thought to sustain a person’s vital energy” (Rubertone 2001: 134).
European spoons modified with Native designs were also found at the Rhode
Island 1000 and Burr’s Hill sites, as well as Native-made spoons crafted from
European copper. Other archaeological examples of Native made spoons from
European copper and brass exist, including one recovered from modern-day
Plymouth and Winthrop, Massachusetts (Willoughby 1973: 239). Designs and motifs
56 used on these spoons include geometric and zoomorphic designs, and clan related symbols (Gibson 1980; Rubertone 2001: 134-137).
European spoons are listed as one of the most commonly imported items to
New Netherland (de Roever 1996: 87). Most spoons from the seventeenth century consist of a bowl, a stalk (or stela), and a knop (or ornament) at the end of stalk opposite the bowl. Leading up to, and during the early portion of the seventeenth century, fig leaf-shaped bowls were typical, gradually deepening and becoming more elliptical over time (Beaudry 1980: 72). Seal top spoons date from the late 1400s through the late 1600s. These spoons are often made of latten (an alloy of copper, zinc, and iron) and can be characterized by a “flat disc over a baluster or ball knop,” as the ornamental finish (Noël Hume 1969: 181). The seal top design declined in popularity in the second half of the 17th century, and typically dates to before 1670
(Noël Hume 1969: 181). The Puritan spoon gained popularity beginning in the 1660s.
This form has a more oval bowl than the seal top type, with a narrower stalk at the bowl that becomes wider and flatter before terminating with a square cut end (Noël
Hume 1969: 181). These spoons, and other types that were produced around and after
1650, were often tinned to give a silvery appearance (Beaudry 1980: 72; Noël Hume
1969: 181). Another popular type during the latter half of the 17th century was the rat tail, which has a deeper bowl than the Puritan type and a reinforced “spinal rib” that runs from the intersection of the bowl and the stalk all the way to the end of the stalk.
This type tends to have a trifid shaped ornament opposite the bowl (Noël Hume 1969:
181). Some spoons have stamped maker’s marks. Some of the marks can be used to
57 identify the manufacturer of a spoon, but it is difficult to utilize these marks for dating purposes (Beaudry 1980).
European Pipes
However obvious it may seem, it should be noted that the inspiration for the white clay tobacco pipe and the seemingly universal use of tobacco by Europeans sprang from its introduction to European sailors by Native Americans. White clay pipes are recorded as items traded to Native Americans and actually spread tobacco use amongst Native people for whom it may have been previously taboo (women and children) or only for ceremonial use. White clay pipes at Fort Orange in New York
(Huey 1988), Fort Pentagoet in Maine (Faulkner and Faulker 1987), the Plymouth trading post at Cushnoc on the Kennebec in Maine (Cranmar 1990), and Fort Shantok in Connecticut (Williams 1973) have all been implicated in multicultural and pluralistic contexts. Gary (2005: 26-27) discusses the commonality of particular markings on the pipes between these sites, particularly of the French fleur-de-lis, which may represent a motif or a design favored by Native people.
Firearms
Firearms and associated flints and shot were not widely used by Native
Americans in the 16th and early 17th centuries as the guns available were not suited to their hunting and warfare practices (Blanchette 1980: 67; Bradley 2006: 79). During this time, remains of guns at Mohawk sites near Ft. Orange in New Netherland show
58 a mixture old and new parts that may or may not have been cobbled together into functional weapons (Bradley 2006: 120). Various gun parts found in Burr’s Hill burial contexts lead to the proposal that these items may have been purely ceremonial, and may not have been functional upon their interment (Blanchette 1980: 67).
The market drastically changed in the 1630s when flintlock weapons arrived in the New World. These guns were self-igniting, unlike previous models, and were far more reliable and effective in poor weather conditions (Blanchette 1980: 67). This new technology increased adoption and popularity of firearms amongst Native people, serving as an excellent example of how Native people selectively embraced
European goods that suited their needs and desires (Blanchette 1980: 67-68; Bradley
2006: 79). By 1639, colonial rulers (Dutch, English, and French) along the coast of the northeast began to grow wary of the increased number of firearms owned by
Native American people—so much so, that they decided to unilaterally ban the sale of guns to them (Bradley 2006: 79).
Despite these new regulations, the demand for guns, lead, and powder grew throughout the 1640s (Bradley 2006: 120). Independent traders were keenly aware of the profit to be made from the sale of illicit goods and smuggled firearms and all the necessary accouterments to Native people (e.g. English at Pemaquid, Grumet 1995:
190-192; see also Camp 1975). Records of firearm trade during this time are difficult to track because of their illicit nature, but documentation of shipments caught by colonial authorities, along with archaeological evidence confirms that Native people were receiving the firearms they desired. By 1650, colonial governors had given up
59 on trying to keep these weapons out of the hands of Native Americans and trade openly began again (Blanchette 1980; Bradley 2006).
Gun parts recovered from colonial New England are overwhelmingly Dutch as the majority of guns produced at that time were coming out of the Netherlands.
Documentary evidence tells us that gun hardware and mechanisms were primarily produced overseas and then assembled in the New World. Independent traders often carved stalks out of local wood and assembled guns themselves to supplement their income (Bradley 2006: 121). The necessary accompaniments of firearms, such as shot and flints, were sometimes produced or modified by Native people for their own use and for trade with Europeans. Production of ammunition and gunflints has been inferred archaeologically as bar lead, shot molds, shot, and gunflints and debitage
(both of local and European lithic material) have been recovered from Native sites
(Blanchette 1980, Grumet 1995: 220). Creative repurposing of lead is exhibited through the recovery of molded lead effigy figures and stone buttonmolds and accompanying lead buttons (Jacobs and Shattuck 1996: 106; Willoughby 1973).
“little bells, glasses, and trifles”
On a voyage to the New World in 1524, Giovanni Verrazanno described the items that inspired awe amongst Native Americans as “little bells, glasses, and trifles”
(Nanepashmet and Bradley 1096: 36). This serves an excellent example of how vague records of the material culture of colonial-Native encounters can be. The ambiguity of the documentary record, and other complex factors like preference and availability,
60 make clearly identifying all the material culture of these interactions challenging. Due to these issues, it would be difficult to aptly discuss all of the items potentially associated with these encounters. This chapter has briefly addressed some of the better-researched types, but a few more should be mentioned. These will not be discussed at length due to the ambiguity of their use or lack of more specific information available. As with all of the other items examined, this list has been derived from the archaeological and documentary record including personal accounts, merchant inventories, and trading ship manifests. This evidence suggests jaw or mouth harps (Grumet 1995: 220), rings (both as finger rings and as used for other purposes) (Gibson 1980), and bells (Gary 2005), may have also been items imported specifically for colonial-Native trade, and may have been desirable items to Native
American people in the Northeast (de Roever 1996).
Native Material Culture: Traditional Persistence and European Influences
Native material culture has historically been subjected to academic evaluations of authenticity. Recent post-colonial approaches have helped develop our understanding of issues regarding change and continuity of Native cultures and their material manifestations. In this section, I explore the types of Native artifacts recovered from the selected archaeological sites include ceramics, lithics, and shell beads. I approach these items, and European influences on them and their production, as a fluid part of cultural adaptation and continuity, not as evidence of acculturation or culture loss.
61 Lithics
Commonly, it is accepted that in most cases the effectiveness of European knives, axes, awls, and other tools, caused them to fully replaced Native counterparts once they caught on in the Americas (Nassaney and Volmar 2003; Trigger and
Swagerty 1996: 377-378). Of course there are exceptions to this, such as individual resistance to new technologies, curating of objects, and a variety of other situations.
In some cases, European tools were just considered an inappropriate or ineffective substitute for the task at hand. Additionally, this new cultural and technological milieu engendered new modifications, forms, and meanings of lithic tools (Nassaney and Volmar 2003: 78). In some instances, evidence shows that European implements or design influences aided in creating new forms or decorations for these traditional objects creating new items with multiple ethnic influences (Nassaney 2002; Nassaney and Volmar 2003: 78-79; see Turnbaugh 1976, 1977 for examples).
Some of the most persistent lithic objects in New England were pestles
(particularly those with effigy imagery) and pipes. These held great cosmological and ceremonial importance in “creating and reproducing new social roles,” after and during the turmoil of disease and European encroachment. Signs of Native-colonial interaction in the production of steatite pipes can be seen in the archaeological recovery of stone pipes in Dutch and English forms. Tool marks on these pipes have also sometimes indicated that European iron implements were used in the carving process (Ritchie 1980). Arrow points (and brass counterparts) are another example of persistent technological forms, as European firearms were not readily available or
62 initially advantageous over traditional hunting or warfare practices (Nassaney and
Volmar 2003: 83).
Shell Beads
Wampum, traditionally symbolic Native shell beads, became the unofficial tender of the New World in the Northeast. European traders used the white and purple beads and belts for trade with Native people and even amongst themselves. Wampum production became highly commercialized by Europeans, who eventually exercised heavy control over the manufacturing process of this traditionally Native item
(Hamell 1980). Archaeological evidence from a Native burial grounds supports that stone drills and abrading/grinding stones also continued alongside their European counterparts as integral tools in the production of wampum and other shell beads at least until production became commercialized by Dutch and English traders. One source reports that the squaw-sachem, Weetamo, of the Pocanset Wampanoag made
“girdles of wampum and beads” showing the continued importance of shell beads as symbols of wealth and status (Nassaney and Volmar 2003: 84; see Rowlandson
[1682] 1953: 54)
Ceramics
Documentary accounts of Native ceramics in southern New England are few, making it difficult to discuss in detail how their style and use may have changed or been influenced by the arrival of Europeans. Roger Williams (1973: 215), who lived
63 primarily amongst the Narragansett in what is now Rhode Island, commented only that Native women were responsible for the production of vessels. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Wampanoag produced variants of Late Woodland pottery that had predominated New England for the previous several hundred years, many of these similar to the Sebonac conoidal wares, Niantic type wares, and other regional traditions (Grumet 1995: 117-118). Goodby’s (1992, 1994, 1998) analysis of Late
Woodland and Contact-period ceramics was unable to present distinguishing characteristics that signal group identity either in form and decoration between
Wampanoag and Narragansett sites in the Narragansett Bay Region in Rhode Island
(Johnson 2000: 134-137). Goodby concludes that “no single ceramic design was being used to mark…‘tribal territories,’” but that overall decoration on vessels did intensify over time as a reaction to the settlement of Europeans (Johnson 2000).
Johnson’s study argues that not only did decoration intensify; it also diversified, with decorative elements seen in varying distributions through all of southern New
England (Johnson 2000: 139). Native ceramics were also influenced as traditional materials and techniques were combined with European forms to create hybrid vessels (Gary 2007).
One Object, Multiple Meanings
Scholars agree that one object can hold a multiplicity of meanings (Loren
2010; Silliman 2009). Drawing from numerous sources of information such as historical documents and the archaeological record allows archaeologists to consider
64 varied and nuanced interpretations of objects and the people they represent.
Combining sources is especially important when dealing with materials and objects that have crossed cultural lines, and in so doing, have been imbued with new, often competing and simultaneous, meanings and associations. This chapter provided specific examples of how Native groups selectively altered, adopted, and ascribed new meaning and function to objects, materials, and practices; not as a means of acculturation, but as part of cultural adaptation and continuity.
65 CHAPTER 5
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND DATA
Following the general discussion of material culture types associated with
Native American use and trade in colonial New England, this chapter identifies and discusses the specific artifacts from the Plymouth collections and attempts to identify areas where these items may cluster spatially. Characterization of these assemblages is necessary due to the number of artifacts that are missing from the collection or that lack adequate provenience information. This is intended to include some level of detail and to function as descriptive catalog for comparative use as few disciplinary resources directly address Plymouth Colony examples of the material culture of these interactions. The materials addressed in this chapter were selected for analysis based on the research in the proceeding chapter on expected artifact types and/or because of signs of manipulation, modification, or hybrid attributes. It should also be noted here, although not discussed further, that all of the sites associated with this Plymouth analysis have significant Native components that attest to Native habitation and land use before the arrival of Europeans.
66 The Winslow Collection
Historical Context
Quite a bit of documentary evidence connects Native people to the Winslows.
In fact, Josiah’s mother, Susanna Winslow, had a Native manservant who lived on the property. It has suggested that he may have been a prisoner from the Pequot War due to his long indenture (Goldstein 2001: 103-104, Wakefield 1997: 3). It is possible that this Native manservant may have been the source of some of the ambiguous objects present in the collection. He also may have been connected to other local Native in and around the community, indentured or otherwise. The Winslows themselves are also historically known for their efforts as diplomats specifically toward the Native community. Edward, in particular, is known for his position as ambassador to the
Wampanoag and his personal relationship with Massasoit. Josiah is recorded as having received at least one Wampanoag leader, Wamsutta, at his home in 1662.
While this particular visit did not end well (Wamsutta fell ill and died), it does not preclude other on-going contact between the Winslows or members of their household with the surrounding Native community (Goldstein 2001).
Material Culture
Knives, Spoons, and Firearms
The Winslow collection contains ten bone or ivory utensil handles, one of which includes an attached knife blade. The handles range from 4.9 to 8.2 in length and range from 0.83 to 1.8 cm wide and are primarily intact. There are 20 knife
67 blades present in the collection. The majority of these blades are fragmentary, but they range from 2.38 to 13.56 cm long and 1.1 to 2.46 cm wide. Five spoon bowls are present in the collection. These bowls range from 5.52 to 6.52 cm long and range from 4.07 to 5.5 cm wide. All five bowls are fig leaf shaped, one of which is perforated to drain liquid. There are nine “stem” or handle fragments present in the collection, they range from 4.74 to 11.38 cm long and 1.65 to 7.3 cm wide. Three of these are seal top, one has a trifid ending, one is in the Puritan or plain style, two are slip top, and two are hexagonal. The collection also contains one complete silver pap spoon. Firearms and related material include 13 possible gun parts, 6 tools and related items (bandoleer caps), 10 gunflints, 93 pieces of flint debitage, 197 pieces of lead shot, and 2 shot molds.
Figure 2. A knife blade, ivory handle, trifid spoon stalk, and seal top spoon from the Winslow site
68
Figure 3. Firearm related artifacts from the Winslow site. From top to bottom, gun barrel, shot mold, gun scourer, lead shot (2), battery, gunflake (flint).
Sheet Metal
The Winslow site contains a total of 55 of pieces of copper alloy sheet metal.
Much of this sheet metal appears to be heavily manipulated, showing signs of scoring, cutting, and riveting. There are a number of identifiable kettle parts in the collection, such as a few rims (hard to confirm, at least two), one ear, two handles, one possible foot, and many pieces with rivets or rivet holes (17), at least one is obviously a kettle patch. Most of these fragments also show signs of the same types of manipulation and similar physical properties; it is possible that much of the sheet metal was repurposed from kettles (Figure 4).
69
Figure 4. Copper-alloy kettle parts from the Winslow site. From the upper left to right: riveted sheet metal, handle, riveted lug, rolled or folded kettle rim, triangular patch, rectangular patch.
Using Ehrhardt’s (2005: 105-140) methods to categorize sheet metal into identifiable shapes and therefore possible intended purposes, the categories include rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular. Some might be considered what Ehrhardt refers to as “blanks,” or preforms of rolled beads, tinkling cones, or other purposefully crafted items. These “blanks” have more defined shapes and cleaner edges than their irregular counterparts. Within the collection, 24 pieces of copper alloy sheet metal have been classified as rectangular, 11 of these are uniform enough to be considered possible rolled bead blanks. Four are considered to be trapezoidal, none of which are uniform enough to be blanks. I have also specified an “irregular” category; this allows for “wastage” and pieces too corroded or degraded to be categorized as potential blanks to still be assigned an overall shape. Sixteen fragments
70 are irregular rectangle forms shapes, eight are irregular trapezoids, and three irregular fragments have an indeterminable shape (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular sheet metal sheet metals from the Winslow site
Overall, the sheet metal ranges from 8.8 to 97.8 mm in length, 4.5 to 55.9 mm in width, and 0.5 to 3.7 mm in thickness. Particularly interesting are three pieces of rolled copper alloy that were previously cataloged as “aglets”(Figure 7). Similar artifacts were recovered at the R.M. and Allerton sites. While it is possible that these are, in fact, aglets, I argue that they are actually rolled beads. This interpretation is supported by their obvious “homemade” appearance: irregularity in thickness, and similarity to other obviously worked sheet metal at these sites. They also look similar to items identified as rolled copper beads at other sites (Gary 2005; Ehrhardt 2005).
They are also differ from a manufactured aglet recovered from the R.M. site (Figure
7)
71
Figure 6. Possible broken projectile point from the Winslow site, bottom side (point) has been folded to fracture; other three sides have been cut.
Figure 7. “Aglets” or possible rolled beads from the Winslow site (left) as compared to a uniform, manufactured aglet from the R.M. site (below).
In an effort to better characterize the copper alloy sheet metals of the Winslow site, I choose to sample these categories: rectangular and trapezoidal forms (29 artifacts total, 7 sampled), irregular forms (28 artifacts total, 7 sampled), and outliers of those forms (1 artifact, 1 sampled). Sampling was necessary as the total number of copper–alloy sheet metal pieces from all three sites was too large for in depth analysis.
72
The samples were all selected randomly in Microsoft Excel using this Natural breaks approach:
Number of Artifacts Percentage Sampled
1-3 100%
4-6 50%
7-15 33%
16-30 25%
31-60 22%
Once selected, the samples were analyzed in depth using a low-power dissecting scope. This process looked at each of the sampled pieces to determine if it was hot or cold worked. Irregularity of thickness was determined and compared by site using digital calipers. This was calculated by recording three measurements of thickness (two sides and the middle) and then determining the maximum variance between them. Detailed information about the manipulation of each piece was recorded such as number of rivets, number of cut edges, number of score lines, and evidence of rolling or folding. An was made effort to determine the presence of cutting signatures (snips, knife, scissors); however, this examination revealed that the edges of the sheet metal are degraded and corroded, leaving no discernible cutting signatures.
Using this methodology I determined that almost all of the Winslow
73 assemblage seems to have been hot worked, probably through a process called annealing, where pieces are individually heated and reheated in a fire for the purposes of hammering and shaping; the likelihood of hammering is indicated by the irregularity of thickness in most of the sample with a maximum variance of 0.51 mm.
Only one artifact in the sample group appeared to have been cold hammered, showing signs of cracking. While it is apparent that almost all of the sampled sheet metal had at least one edge that has been cut or snipped, cutting signatures for snips, scissors, or knives were unobservable. Signs of stress from folding, rolling, and folding to fracture (snap) are seen on 10 artifacts (75 percent of total sample), although intentionality is difficult to determine in this regard.
Tools, Personal Items, and other Metal Objects
Tools include one ax head and one ax socket, seven wedges, four tool collars that are indeterminate, four awls, two files, and one sickle. Personal items include 16 straight pins, 7 domed metal buttons, 4 large fasteners, 3 copper aglets, 41 buckles, and 1 jaw or mouth harp. Five scissor fragments also exist, 3 of which are small enough to be associated with sewing/embroidery tasks; the other 2 are more likely utilitarian. Other items include 3 fishhooks, 1 lead seal, and 13 intact and 1 partial
“curtain” rings.
74
Figure 8. Tools, personal items, and other metal objects from the Winslow site. Pictured from top to bottom, left to right: lead bale seal, mouth harp, button, brass buckle, clothing hooks, straight pin, fish hook, awl button, brass buckle, clothing hooks, straight pin, fish hook, awl.
Native-Produced Materials
Due to the broad nature of this analysis, my characterization of the Native ceramics recovered from the Winslow site is a simplified one. Of the 188 potsherds in the collection, 26 of them fall into the less than 1 square cm range, 91 of them fall into the 1-2 square cm range, and 12 of them fall into the 3-5 square cm range. Of these, 21 are decorated, which equals 11 percent of the total number of potsherds.
These materials show none of the known attributes that would suggest that they post- date the arrival of Europeans or were artifacts of interaction. In other words, none of the potsherds are in the style of Shantok wares or exhibit European influences in design or decoration such as those found at other known multiethnic colonial sites
(Gary 2005, 2007; Goodby 1992: 14; Johnson 2000). The spatial information attributed to these Native artifacts also does not show any significant areas of use or density at the Winslow site.
75 One piece of soapstone in the collection with thin circular indention on it may indicate colonial influences; and was previously catalogued as a Native paint pot
(Figure 9). This artifact is similar to stone buttonmolds recovered from Native in sites in Natick, Yarmouth, Kingston, and Essex, Massachusetts (Willoughby 1973: 243).
These have been found accompanied by lead and brass buttons made from the molds, some of which appear similar to the lead discs also in the Winslow collection. None the other of the lithic materials from this collection show any indicators that they may date from the colonial period.
Figure 9. Possible stone buttonmold from the Winslow site
Spatial Analysis of the Winslow Site
Henry Hornblower II and the Harvard Excavator’s Club excavated the
Winslow site starting in 1941. These excavations covered more than 1500 square feet exposing the cellar hole and what appeared to be the structure’s footprint (Goldstein
76 2001: 95). The site was excavated using a 2-m grid in arbitrary levels of 15-20 cm
(Beaudry and George 1987). Artifacts and associated provenience information were recorded by unit, and plans and profiles were made of uncovered features.
Hornblower was able to identify a cellar hole (20 m by 5 m) and a shallow depression, now called “Structures 1 and 2.” An area known as the “passageway” joins these structures. Another possible hearth, smaller than the other, was also identified, and deemed to either be part of an extension of the house or an outside fire pit (Beaudry et al. 2003; Deetz and Deetz 2000) (Figures 10 and 11). No documents suggest when the house was built or if the Mayflower passenger, Edward Winslow, ever actually lived there. Using Binford’s pipe stem dating formula, a mean date of occupation for the home is 1671 (Goldstein 2001: 98, Noel Hume 1969). This date suggests that Edward’s son, Josiah and his wife Penelope, may have been the primary occupants of this structure.
77
Figure 10. Historic site plan of the 1941 excavations of the Winslow site. (Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation)
78
Figure 11. Historic site plan of the 1947 excavations of the Winslow site (Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation)
79 Bullen was commissioned by Hornblower to finish the project in 1947; his excavation revealed a colonial trash pit that capped a Native shell midden. This ashy feature included European artifacts and associated linear postholes, but also had “pre- contact” Native materials on top of it. Bullen interpreted this to be a natural depression, which was filled with the remains of a fire. He proposed that soils from other areas of the property containing the earlier Native materials were used to cap these remains. Due to a lack of window glass and an abundance of nails, along with the presence of the postholes, it is thought that this structure may have been a barn or other outbuilding (Goldstein 2001). Differing structural interpretations are further discussed in Beaudry et al. (2003), Deetz and Deetz (2000), and Goldstein (2001).
Notes and maps from the 1941 excavation indicate that the average depth of the plow zone of this site was approximately 0-25 cm below surface (bs). Notes detailing plow zone depths are not available for each unit; unless otherwise specified,
25 cmbs is assumed as the depth of the plow zone. Artifacts are grouped based on their depth below surface as indicated by catalog number and corresponding field notes. I first address artifacts presently accounted for in the collections, and then address other materials listed in the field documentation, but which are either no longer present in the collection or have been disassociated from their provenience data.
Hornblower designated this site into seven areas. Structure 1 is divided into
“W” (western portion) and “E” (eastern portion). The Passageway joins the whole of
Structure 1 to the whole of Structure 2. Structure 2 is also divided into “W” (western
80 portion) and “E” (eastern portion). A hearth feature was located directly south of these structures. The “trash pit/shell mound” was located to the southwest. Notes from the excavation indicate that the excavation as a whole reached a maximum depth of approximately 200 cmbs in some areas before reaching subsoil.
Structure 1 E represents the eastern half of the Winslow home. Artifacts present in the collections that are pertinent to this analysis range from 50-150 cmbs.
Notes indicate that the excavators believe that the floor of the structure was somewhere around 80 cmbs. From 50-75 cmbs artifacts that may indicate interaction in the collection include one fragmented body section of a projectile point, one fragment of copper alloy sheet metal, one wedge, two pieces of flint debitage, one
7 6 /64″ pipe fragment, and four /64″ pipe fragments.
Materials associated with this depth, but which are not accounted for in the collection include one flint fragment and 61 other “stone chips.” Artifacts found
5 between 75-150 cmbs include one buckle, one pipe stem measuring /64″, one
6 7 measuring /64″, and two stems measuring /64″. One bale seal and one awl are the collection from this context but are not listed in the original catalog/notes.
Structure 2 is also divided into two sections, but will be treated as a whole structure as many of the artifacts lack E and W designations and many with designations are not explicitly listed in the original catalog. For the layer between 25-
50 cmbs only two Native potsherds in the 2-3 square cm range are present in the collection. The catalog listing reports “21 potsherds,” but how many of these are
81 Native is undeterminable. Pipe fragments from this layer include two stems with
5 6 7 bores measuring /64″, one that measures /64″, and two that measure /64″.
Artifacts in the layer 50-75 cmbs include one piece of flint debitage and four
Native potsherds, three measure between 2-3 square cm and one measures between the range of 3-5 square cm. Pipe stems from this context include four that measure
5 6 7 /64″, five that measure /64″, one that measures /64″, and two bowl fragments.
Artifacts listed in the original catalog associated with this level, but which are either not present or are unlabeled within the collection, include 42 “stone chips.” Artifacts in the collection from 100-125 cmbs include one lead shot with attached sprue, one fishhook, one brass “curtain ring,” one stone scraper, and one piece of copper-alloy sheet metal. The sheet metal fragment is of particular interest, as it resembles similar items in other contexts interpreted as brass projectile points. In this instance, three sides show clean cuts, potentially creating a triangular shaped point. The missing section (including point) has not survived, but shows detachment not from a clean intentional cut, but from being damages or folded to the point of snapping (Figure 6).
Other materials recorded in the original catalog include 10 “stone flakes,” one Native potsherd, and other primarily European artifacts.
Artifacts from the layer between 125-265 cmbs in the collection and listed in the catalog include 1 iron wedge and 10 pipe fragments— 5 with a bore measurement
5 6 7 of /64″, two that measure /64″, 1 that measures /64″, and 2 bowl fragments. Artifacts in the collection, but not listed in the catalog under their attributed provenience location include one quartz projectile point and two Native potsherds measuring 2-3
82 square cm. The original catalog also includes two glass beads, one pin, five stone chips, and two arrow fragments; however, I am unable to substantiate links from artifacts to these listings. Finally, one spoon handle present in the collection is attributed to this structure, but not given a depth.
The hearth feature directly south of Structure 2 may represent a non-central heat source for a room or possibly an outdoor area (Goldstein 2001). Most artifacts attributed to this area are listed as being within the general plow zone depth or have no depth indicated; because of this, I address this area as one group. Household items and tools include one bone handle (knife or fork), two spoon handles, one iron awl, one bullet mold fragment, two pieces of flint debitage, and one wedge. Personal items from this level include two buckles and one pin. Lithic artifacts include one plummet and one piece of sheet metal. Native ceramic potsherds include one that measures 1-2 square cm, and two potsherds within the 2-3 square cm range. Pipes associated with
5 6 these contexts including 6 stems with bores measuring /64″, 14 measuring /64″, 6
7 8 measuring /64″, and 3 measuring /64″.
The final area of the site discussed, known as the colonial trash pit and underlying Native shell midden, contains the most evidence for Native-colonial interactions for this site. Artifacts recovered between 25-40 cmbs and that are accounted for in the collection include one flint “chip,” one copper alloy “aglet,” and one piece of copper alloy sheet metal. Other artifacts listed in the original catalog but without matching provenience numbers in the collection include an unspecified number of “stone chips”. Pipe data from the current catalog indicates 1 pipe stem
83 4 5 6 with a measurable bore of /64″, 1 stem measuring /64″, 10 stems measuring /64”, 50
7 8 stems measuring /64″, 13 stems measuring /64″. Two pipe bowl fragments and one
7 measurable bowl ( /64″) were also recovered.
Materials recovered between 25-50 cmbs include several gun-related items including a gun barrel scourer (cleaning implement), a matchlock pan cover, four metal items that have been identified as possible gun parts, three gun flakes, and four lead shot. Utensils and tools include five knife fragments, two bone fragments, one spoon handle and two spoon bowls, one whole pair of scissors and two partial pairs, and four tool collars (possibly hoes or spades). Personal items include 1 aglet, 1 domed brass button, 3 pins, 1 bone comb, and 14 complete or fragmented buckles.
Other items include 6 pieces of flint debitage, 15 pieces of copper alloy sheet, and 3 curtain rings. Native items include five fragments of a curved worked steatite vessel
(?), three stone pestles, eight lithic projectile points, three lithic scrapers, and four undetermined pieces of worked stone. Native ceramic potsherds were inventoried by relative size and include 15 Native ceramic potsherds less than 1 square cm in size range, 60 potsherds in the 1-2 square cm size range, and 27 in the 2-3 square cm size range, and 3 in the 3-5 square cm range.
Artifacts associated with this level in the collection, but not listed in the original catalog, include three unidentified tool collars, five pieces of copper alloy sheet metal, one iron kettle ear, two buckles, one potential trigger part, one projectile point, two pieces of flint debitage, and two stone scrapers. Other artifacts listed in the original catalog but without matching provenience numbers in the collection include
84 16 stone chips, 1 stone drill, and 1 buttonmold. Pipe data from the current catalog
5 6 7 indicates two stems that measure /64″, 33 that measure /64″, 339 that measure /64″,
8 9 72 that measure /64″, 7 that measure /64″, and 2 fragments stems that are presumed to be not measurable. Twenty-nine bowl fragments are also listed in the modern catalog,
7 nine additional bowls were not complete enough to measure—eight measure /64″ and
8 one measures /64″.
Artifacts in the collection recovered between 51-80 cmbs include a total of seven Native potsherds—two measuring less than 1 square cm, one measuring in the
1-2 square cm range, three measuring in the 2-3 cm range, and one measuring in the
3-5 square cm range. Four mending pieces of a steatite vessel, one piece of flint debitage, one projectile point, one hammer stone, and one lithic scraper are also present in the collection and associated with this depth range. Pipes in the modern
6 7 catalog from this level include two stems measuring /64″, six stems measuring /64″,
8 one stem measuring /64″, and one bowl fragment. Other artifacts in the collection do indicate that a small amount of European materials are also in this layer, but it seems that this is the pre-contact occupation layer or “shell-heap” that Hornblower and
Bullen mention.
Finally, because of the large number of other artifacts potentially relevant to this analysis, I consider artifacts recovered from the plow zone and those also without any adequate provenience information from the trash pit area as one group. This group includes nine fragments of copper alloy sheet metal, seven knife blades, one bone handle, three wedges, one “curtain ring,” and one iron awl. Firearm related
85 materials include one possible gun spring, one gun worm, two gun flakes, the battery from a snaphance, one scourer, and one trigger guard. Personal items include 11 whole or fragmented buckles, 1 domed brass button, and 1 bone comb. Spoon fragments include two spoon bowls and three handles, one of which has been filed or ground to a point (make-shift awl or other tool?) (Figure 12). Lithic materials include
12 flakes/debitage, 5 sheet metal fragments, 3 pestles, 1 plummet, 3 projectile points,
1 hammer stone; and Native ceramics include 8 potsherds that fall into the less than 1 square cm range, 14 that fall into the 1-2 square cm range, 14 in the 2-3 square cm range, and 6 in the 3-5 square cm range. Pipes related to these contexts include 3
5 6 7 stems measuring /64″, 18 stems measuring /64″, 105 stems measuring /64″, 23 stems
8 9 8 measuring /64″, 1 measuring /64″, and 1 bowl measuring /64″.
Figure 12. Spoon handle ground down to a point
Discussion
After evaluating all of the areas of the Winslow site, it is clear that the majority of the items with provenience data are linked to the colonial trash pit area
(92.4 percent). Goldstein (2001) suggests that the assemblage and the line of post
86 holes uncovered in this area may be that of some type of outbuilding such as a barn.
Interestingly, historical sources implicate outbuildings in part for trading and storage of trading goods apart from the main home (Deetz and Deetz 2000). There is no mention of any outbuildings in Josiah Winslow’s 1681 probate inventory or any other documentary source that might shed light on the use of the structure. Given the large amount of material culture related to raising and managing livestock and horses
(Goldstein 2001: 105), it most likely that the primary function of such an outbuilding would be related to these activities, but that does not exclude secondary purposes.
The R.M. Collection
Historical Context
The documentary record substantiates significant trade and Native interaction at this site. Plymouth Colony records indicate that William Clark(e) was an established merchant in Plymouth, and he most likely had a place of business downtown that may have housed supplies or had a trading hut in one of the outbuildings on his property (Chartier 2012). Deetz and Deetz (2000) state that the details of what exactly happened on the day of the fire and murders of the inhabitants,
March 12th 1676. Clark(e) regularly interacted with local Native people, most likely through trade. This relationship was apparently maintained regardless of a decree made the previous year that Native people were not allowed near the colonial settlement “on pain of death or imprisonment” due to rising hostilities in the advent of
87 King Philip’s War. It was probably because Clark(e)’s access to imported goods and his defensible location at the Eel River that made his home a logical structure to garrison in light of growing colonial-Native tensions. However, colonial testimony from the court case after the crimes and the archaeological evidence (no sign of a large palisade wall) indicate that the home was only “slightly fortified” (Chartier
2012; Deetz and Deetz 2000: 236-239)
Testimony from one of Native suspects indicates that at least one of the men implicated in the crimes committed had recently gained access to Clark(e)’s house and had at least some basic knowledge as to its layout and goods (Chartier 2012).
Another testimony by a Native woman said that she heard the men conspiring to commit the crimes and that they decided that Sunday would be the best day to attack the home as most people would be at gone “to meeting,” leaving little to no opposition (Chartier 2012; Plymouth Colony Records 1667: 205). Details regarding the attack and burning are varied, ranging from just Clark(e)’s wife, Sarah, as the only murder victim, to eleven English (two families) being slain during the raid. One account even lists out the goods taken and their value, much of which relates to firearms (Deetz and Deetz 2000: 236-239). Regardless of the details of this heinous event, we can be sure that Clark(e) had a relationship with local Native people and that they would recognize his home as a place to obtain goods.
88 Material Culture
Knives, Spoons, and Bone Handles
There are 13 knives (1 with a bone handle) and 1 bone handle (no blade) in the collection. These handles range from 3.09 to 7.81 cm long and range from 1.18 to
1.84 cm wide; they are primarily intact. The majority of the knife blades present are fragmentary, but they range from 2.6 to 12.33 cm in length and range in width from
1.17 to 2.04 cm. There are four spoons in the collection, three of which are handle fragments, and the remainder in an indeterminate bowl. One is a seal top spoon, one is a Puritan spoon, and the last is a slip top. The “R.M.” spoon, which the site is named for, is no longer in the collection.
Figure 13. Tools, firearms, personal items, and other metal objects from the R.M. site. From top to bottom, left to right: wedge, iron buckle, brass buckle, curtain ring, knife with bone handle, thimble, scissor fragment, and a gun worm.
89 Sheet Metal
The R.M. site contains a total of 45 pieces of copper alloy sheet metal. As
with the other sites, the sheet metal appears to be manipulated by hammering,
scoring, cutting, and riveting. While there is only 1 identifiable copper alloy kettle
rim, there are 4 cast iron kettle fragments, 1 iron handle, and 10 copper-alloy pieces
with rivets or rivet holes. The site report by Fernstrom and Hornblower (1954)
records 58 fragments of iron kettles from all over the site. Easily confirmable kettle
fragments show similar signs of manipulation and physical properties to the rest of
the sheet metal; as a result, it can be inferred that much of it was repurposed from
kettles.
Again utilizing Ehrhardt’s (2005) methods to categorize the shapes present in
the copper alloy sheet metal assemblage, the assemblage includes eleven artifacts that
fall into the rectangular category; eight of them are uniform enough to possibly be
blanks for rolled bead production. The other 34 fragments of sheet metals are
considered to be irregular, 12 of these are trapezoidal, 20 of them are rectangular, and
2 of them have indeterminable shapes. Overall sheet metal fragments range from 8.9
to 47 mm long, 7 to 30 mm wide, and 0.05 to 1.4 mm thick (Figure 14).
90 Figure 14. Rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular sheet metal from the RM site.
To provide a more efficient characterization of the entire assemblage, I chose to sample 4 categories: rectangular forms (11 artifacts total, 4 sampled), irregular forms (33 artifacts total, 10 sampled), and outliers of those forms (1 artifacts, 1 sampled). These samples were randomly selected and analyzed using a Natural breaks approach and the analysis methodology specified in the discussion of the copper-alloy materials from the Winslow site.
All of the sample sheet metal seemed to be hot worked, aside from two indeterminate pieces. The metal was probably annealed and worked, like the fragments at the other two sites. Hammering in this instance is considered likely, as in most cases it is indicated by the irregularity of thickness. In the R.M. samples, the maximum variance in is 0.45 mm.; none of the artifacts in the sample group appeared to have been cold hammered, although a number of lead fragments in the collection and one of the possible Native pendants do appear to be cold hammered. While it is apparent that almost all of the sampled fragments had at least one edge that had been cut or snipped, cutting signatures for snips, scissors, or knives were unobservable due 91 to corrosion and weathering. Only 3 fragments, or 20 percent of the sample, do not exhibit signs of cutting; all of the edges on their pieces are irregular. Signs of stress from folding, rolling, and folding to fracture (snap) are seen on 6 artifacts (40 percent of total sample), although intentionality is difficult to determine in this regard.
Intentional scoring is seen on two of the sampled pieces (13 percent of the total sample). One artifact (7 percent) in the sample has a possible rivet hole.
A few copper-alloy artifacts deserve more detailed discussion. One metal projectile point was recovered from this site (Figure 15), measuring 36.4 mm from base to tip, with the base measuring 25.8 mm wide, and is 1 mm thick. Another piece of sheet metal appears to have the partial outline of a projectile point (or possibly of a tinkling cone blank) scored onto it (Figure 16). Metal points very similar in form to these one have been recovered at various regional sites throughout New England
(Grumet 1995). Specifically similar examples were found at the Western Abenaki site, Hormell (27CA15), in Freedom New Hampshire, and the Bark Wigwams site in western Massachusetts (Grumet 1995: 90, 100, see also Boisvert 1993; Johnson and
Bradley 1987). Examples of the use of metal projectile points locally by the
Wampanoag are primarily in Native and European mortuary contexts such as the
Purcell site and Burrs Hill (Grumet 1995, see also Schambach and Bailey 1974; Cook
1985; Gibson 1980)
92 Figure 15. Metal projectile point from the R.M. site
Figure 16. A fragment of sheet metal that appears to have the partial scored outline of a projectile point.
Two circular worked fragments resemble Native pendants or earrings (Figure
17). One is crudely pierced and appears to have a possible incised cross design. This copper-alloy disc measures 29 mm long, 30 mm wide, and 1 mm thick; it appears to have been cold hammered into shape (cracking at edges). Cruciform designs and other religious medallions, rings, and objects of adornment have been documented in association with Native Americans in the archaeological record. Examples of this are especially present in Spanish Florida, and the praying towns and Jesuit missions of the Dutch, French, and English in the north where intense pressure on Christian 93 conversion influenced notions of adornment, whether or not they represent genuine faith or have more subversive meanings (Loren 2010: 62-66, see also Deagan 2002:
38). The second possible pendant or earring appears to have been heated, hammered and clipped into a disc measuring 21 mm in length and 1 mm thick. This disc is not pierced, but may have been intended to be pierced, or possibly for some other purpose, such as a token.
Two other pieces of sheet metal appear to have been manipulated into a form that may have functioned similarly to what Ehrhardt has identified as a “clip”
(2005:117-118) (Figure 17). The top flat portion of these clips functioned as a shiny decorative surface. One of these clips is 2.9 cm long and 0.83 cm wide; the other is
1.6 cm long, and 0.65 cm wide. One piece of sheet metal appears to take a rough cruciform shape, measuring 15 mm x 16 mm and is 0.6 mm thick. Two rolled pieces of copper, cataloged as “aglets,” resemble artifacts from other sites that have been interpreted as rolled copper beads (Figure 17). These tubes average 27.59 mm in length, 2.6 mm in width (tapering), and are of irregular thickness suggesting that they may have been produced on site. Hornblower and Fernstorm’s report record six whole or fragmentary tubular copper beads (1954).
94 Figure 17. Manipulated sheet metal from the R.M. site. Pictured from top to bottom, left to right: pierced pendant or earring with cruciform design, clipped cruciform shape, un-pierced pendant/earring or token, rolled beads, and clips
Tools, Firearms, Personal Items, and Other Metal Objects
Tools from the site include seven ax heads, two wedges, one scythe, four fishhooks, one possible drawknife, one chisel or auger, and one awl. Gun related items include 2 possible gun parts, 1 gun worm, 3 bandoleer caps, 23 lead shot, 55 gunflints, and 1095 pieces of flint debitage—most likely from gunflint production.
Personal items include 1 mouth harp, 5 buckles, 1 thimble, six straight pins, seven metal buttons (2 sliver, 5 brass), 18 fasteners and 31 fastener fragments, glass beads
(discussed below) and 2 copper-alloy aglet fragments (clear signs of molding, not a rolled bead). Three book clasps were also recovered from this site. Hornblower and
Fernstrom (1954) note that they appear to have been modified. Two of them are matching and appear to have been stamped with fleur-de-lis and modified with irregular triangular incising. The third clasp appears to have been cut down some and has a non-uniform puncture (Figure 18). The purpose of these clasps and who
95 performed their alterations is unknown. Another interesting item is a small silver bell, possibly used as a tinkler. Bells similar to this one in size and construction are often referred to as hawk bells and have been found in association with Native-colonial interactions, especially in Spanish colonial contexts. Recovered examples include bells found in Florida at the Dunn’s Creek site (Loren 2008:75).
Figure 18. Modified book clasps from the R.M. site. See detail photo for incised design.
Other items include 8 scissors/scissor fragments, 4.5 curtain rings, and 21 lead seals/blank discs or tokens. These discs vary in size and form averaging 15.51 mm in diameter and 3.38 mm thick (Figures 19, 20, and 21). Due to the presence of what excavators refer to as a “lead pit” for melting down sheet metal and their variance in size and form, it is not unreasonable to assume that many of the unmarked and crude discs were produced on the premises. Some of them are punctured or appear to have been cold hammered (cracked edges). One of them has a small stamped cruciform design on it, one is punctated to the point that it appears polka-dotted, and another
96 appears to have been incised with a fish scale design. Examples of Native stone button molds from numerous sites in Massachusetts include designs not unlike those on some of these lead discs, possibly indicating their use as buttons and even button manufacture on the site (Willoughby 1973: 243; see also Loren 2008: 99).
Figure 19. Lead bale seals from the R.M. site.
Figure 20. Evidence for the manipulation of lead at the R.M. site
97 Figure 21. Possible lead buttons, tokens, or discs. Incised fish scale and punctuated designs.
Beads
Nineteen glass beads were recovered in the 1940s from the R.M. site
(Fernstrom and Hornblower 1954). Unfortunately many have been lost; only one complete bead (Kidd type IIa40) and 6 partial beads (Kidd types WIb16, IIa13, and
IIa35) remain available for examination. Five of them are drawn beads in solid colors.
The sixth bead may have been wound and then molded, but is burned and degraded, making identification difficult. Fernstrom and Hornblower’s report categorizes the beads as follows: three were very dark blue translucent glass; two were opaque with yellow, blue, and white longitudinal stripes with reddish ends; one was medium blue with three longitudinal white stripes; six were blue greenish-white; one was light blue and translucent; three were white and opaque; one was light blue and opaque; two were medium blue and translucent; and finally, one bead is described as being made of white clay.
98 Figure 22. Beads from the R.M. site. Kidd Types pictured from top to bottom, left to right, 1st row IIa40, WIb16, 2nd row IIa35 (all 3), 3rd row, IIa13, IIa35.
Native Material
The R.M. site has a recognized Native component as it overlaps with
19PL521, or the Eel River Farm site. My discussion of the Native materials extends only to those that are housed with the R.M. collection; this is due to complications in trying to match provenience information. Of the 20 potsherds in the collection, 1 of them is less than 1 square cm, 16 of them are in the 1-2 square cm range, and 3 of them fall in into the 2-3 square cm range. Of these, 6 sherds are decorated, which equals 30 percent of the total number of potsherds. As was the case with the Winslow site, these materials show none of the known attributes that would suggest that they post-date the arrival of Europeans or were artifacts of interaction. None of the potsherds are in the style of Shantok wares or exhibit European influences in design or decoration such as those found at other known multiethnic colonial sites (Gary
2005, 2007; Goodby 1992: 14; Johnson 2000).
99 Lithic materials from this site include 117 pieces of stone debitage, 12 points,
2 pieces of fire cracked rock, 1 core, 1 steatite fragment, and 3 ground tools. Eighteen fragments of steatite (3 bowls, 15 stems) pipes were also recovered from this site, although only 11 are recorded in the original site report (Hornblower and Fernstrom
1954). Most interestingly, the recovered bowls are distinctly shaped like their English and Dutch counterparts (Figure 23). It is unclear if these were used by Native people at the site before the settlement of Europeans on the land, or if these were items traded by the Native Americans to the English. Two fragments of redware pipes are also recorded in the original report, but are not in the collection; these were most likely of unknown local manufacture.
Figure 23. Steatite pipes in European forms from the R.M. site.
These Native materials are mixed temporally but do date from the Late
Woodland into the colonial period. Due to the mixed nature of the site, the lack of provenience information for much of the materials, and the known occupation of
Native people in this area leading up to colonization, it is difficult to determine 100 whether or not any of these materials are actually contemporaneous with the
European materials. That being stated, the presence of hybrid objects such as the metal projectile point and the steatite pipes suggest that the presence of Native materials in the European deposits should not be ruled out as site disturbance.
Spatial Analysis of the R.M. Site
The property where the R.M. site is located used to be part of the Hornblower family’s summer retreat and was given to Plimoth Plantation at Henry Hornblower
II’s request. As a young boy, Hornblower became enthralled with local history and archaeology under the direction of the family’s gardener and amateur archaeologist,
Jesse Brewer. Hornblower, his brother, Ralph, and Brewer collected artifacts from all over the family property and other local sites for several summers (Gomes 1985,
Deetz and Deetz 2000: 236). These finds, which undoubtedly contain materials pertaining to the R.M. site, are stored at Plimoth Plantation with limited provenience information.
Hornblower began investigating the R.M. site with Brewer and the Harvard
Excavator’s Club as his first professional project from 1940-41 (Hornblower 1950,
1943). He also oversaw returning excavations by Karl D. Fernstrom in 1949 (Beaudry and George 1987). A fragmented draft report summarizing all of these excavations is on file at Plimoth Plantation (Fernstrom and Hornblower 1954, see also Welch 1964).
This report meticulously details the 1940s excavations including excavation methods and a site map, along with features, material findings, and preliminary interpretations.
101 Excavations by both Hornblower and Rowe (1940-42) and Fernstrom (1949) employed two separate 2-m grids— Fernstrom’s excavations overlap Hornblower’s but are off set about 60 cm, which complicates interpretation (Figure 24).
Figure 24. R.M. site map facing west; includes both Hornblower and Fernstrom excavation grids. (Courtesy of Craig Chartier, Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project)
102 The excavators note how disturbed the site was due to plowing, looting, and bioturbation; because of this, only intact features and artifacts in situ below the plow zone were mapped. Dirt from the plow zone was removed with shovels and examined for artifacts; screening was employed if deemed necessary. The plow zone was recorded as 0-25 cm deep; artifacts from this level were bagged and labeled with provenience information. The interface of the plow zone and occupational levels was carefully troweled for in situ artifacts and features to the underlying subsoil. Materials recorded from these occupational levels were mapped and photographed.
The excavation spanned 624 square meters. The main features identified include a hearth with a chimney fall of brick and rock; some of this rock may have been part of the stone foundation of the main dwelling measuring 8 m x 5.20 m. A second hearth was found that may be associated with another chimney fall. These features possibly represent an addition to the house or a second structure rather than an outside hearth (Chartier 2012). The cellar hole itself measures 3.2 m by 2.4 m and is 1.8 m deep. Based on the recovered data, Deetz and Deetz approximate that this dwelling measured about 11.6 m long and about 4.8 m wide. Works by Beaudry and
George (1987), Deetz and Deetz (2000), and Chartier (2012) discuss potential structural interpretations for these features. This site is one of the oldest Plymouth
Colony sites to be excavated, with the majority of pipe stems recovered dating to
1650-1680, and 37.8 percent dating to 1620-1650 (Deetz and Deetz 2000: 235-236).
Of the three sites examined by this analysis, the R.M. collection was the most difficult to sort through due to several factors. First, as previously stated, the site was
103 heavily disturbed by the time of the 1940s excavations, and the grids employed overlap, but do not match. Second, the artifacts discussed in the unfinished report and listed the two subsequent iterations of catalog do not match, indicating the loss of much of the collection or provenience data and the mixing of these old collections
(Fernstrom and Hornblower 1954: 4). Due to these complications, many of the artifacts discussed lack full provenience information. Therefore, I discuss artifacts from this site in relation to the three prominent features, the two hearths and associated chimney falls, and the cellar hole. The excavators also located 45 pits, of various types (postholes, molds, “natural,” and “Indian,” fire pits, etc.) (Fernstrom and Hornblower 1954: 8). Artifacts are organized by depth within areas when the information is available.
The first hearth is closest to the eastern limit of excavation. Hornblower referred to this area as “Hearth B;” it is the easternmost hearth. One thimble in the collection has been designated as a surface find for this area. The rest of the materials for include one shot mold, one pair of scissors, one knife, one “curtain ring,” one gimblet (tool for boring holes), four copper alloy sheet metals, one metal button, and five lead discs or tokens. These items do not have any accompanying depth in formation. One additional “curtain ring” is present in the collection, but is not listed in the original catalog for this area. Items listed in the original catalog in association with this area, but either not in the collection or divorced from provenience information include one buckle, one pap spoon, and one additional fragment of copper alloy sheet metal. Hornblower and Fernstrom note that much of the lead shot
104 (and affiliated findings, sprue etc.) in the collection are attributed to this area and are associated with shot production. They refer to this area as the “lead pit” (Fernstrom and Hornblower 1954).
The other hearth area is in the center of the site; Hornblower called this feature “Hearth A”. Artifacts listed as above the plow line for this area include one lead disc, one knife fragment, and one stone tool (grinding tool?). Artifacts associated with these in the original catalog, but that are either missing from the collection or has been disassociated from their provenience information, include one piece of lead sheet metal, three shot, and two shot still attached to lead sprue. Objects in the collection specifically associated with the hearth complex include two Native potsherds, one bead, one spoon handle, one piece of sprue with two lead shot still attached, one steatite pipe bowl, one key, one gunflint, and one brass button.
Associated objects listed in the original catalog, but either not present in the collection, or which have been dissociated from their provenience information includes one additional bead (“small blue-green” glass) and one wedge.
Items associated with the chimney fall of this hearth include one steatite pipe stem fragment and two metal buttons. Two pits associated with this hearth feature also contained items of interest including four pins (three brass, one silver; found in pit 11L2 bordering units H4 and H5) and two lead discs (11L2, bordering units H3 and H4). One other lead disc and one scissor fragment are also present in the collection and are associated with this area. The report by Hornblower and Fernstrom notes that the majority of the lead seals and lead sheet metal of the collection are
105 associated with this hearth area. They also note that a “small hoard of finely worked stone arrow points” was found in association with this area, but again the spatial data available makes it difficult to determine if this cache is contemporaneous with the colonial occupation, or temporally pre-dates it (Fernstrom and Hornblower 1954).
The cellar hole is located west of the two hearth features. Artifacts remaining in the collection that are explicitly associated with this feature are limited, so I include some surrounding excavation units as identified by the site map. The only artifacts in the collection indicated as part of the plow zone are one fishhook and half of a light blue green glass bead. Other artifacts associated with these items in the catalog but without provenience information or no longer in the collection include one piece of lead shot and one stone point. Artifacts recovered from the cellar hole that are still present in the collection include 1 knife, 1 lead seal, 1 pipe stem
8 measuring /64″ with fleur-de-lis decoration, 1 hoe, 1 file, 14 gunflints, 10 pieces of flint debitage, 2 fragments of a copper alloy kettle, and 1 “curtain ring”. Five additional pipe stems, and one pipe bowl in the collection are also associated with the cellar. Listed in the catalog, but either not present in the collection or disassociated from provenience information, are 14 pieces of flint, 1 piece of flaked quartz, 1 indeterminate chip, 1 pair of scissors (in 2 pieces), and 2 iron kettle fragments.
Discussion
The R.M. site has the most material culture that points to interaction with
Native people of the sites examined. The analysis of pertinent materials still
106 physically in the collection by the areas discussed is inconclusive (Hearths A and B, cellar). This reveals either that not enough spatial information is available to associate a specific area with interaction or that the areas associated to the identified features should be expanded for further analysis. These areas each contain an average about 5 percent of the collection. Forty percent of the collection has inadequate provenience information. The remaining 45 percent of the collection is attributed to areas outside the areas associated with the features.
Another study focused on the gunflints of this site by Craig Chartier (2012) briefly asserts that the feature known as Hearth B (easternmost hearth) is a secondary structure that can be associated specifically with trade. Chartier’s research associates a substantial portion of the trade items with and near this feature. He also adds that household ceramics cluster near Hearth A (western hearth associated with house), but that those types are not found in or around Hearth B, further substantiating his claim.
My analysis did not include European ceramics, so this study can neither confirm nor deny Chartier’s claims in that regard (Chartier 2012). In his analysis Chartier also suggests that the unusually high amount of flint debitage (presumably from the manufacture of gunflints), may be linked to Clark(e)’s role as an ammunitions supplier for the burgeoning war. Chartier continues that at this time many men were already in the service, leaving the question of who was producing the flints. He suggests that it is possible that Christian Native from nearby Manamet Point may have been employed by Clark(e) to knap crude flints, as the colonial government was hesitant to utilize Native as soldiers (Chartier 2012).
107 Deetz and Deetz also make claims that the features on this site suggest the storage and trade of goods on the property. They remark that the cellar hole extended
1.8 m (6 ft.) into the ground (closer to 7 ft. at the time of occupancy), making it much deeper than the typical 3 to 4 foot depth of most Plymouth Colony cellars. Deetz and
Deetz suggest that the cellar was purposefully designed with the intent on storing more than a normal household’s typical amount of foodstuffs, which could have included trade goods.
The Allerton Collection
Historical Context
Documentary evidence implicating the Allerton site in colonial-Native interactions is less robust than at the other sites. The only documentation the Allerton family participated in colonial-Native interactions is that Isaac Allerton was involved in many colonial enterprises, which included trade (Deetz and Deetz 2000: 220-230).
No documentary record of trade or storage of goods at this site has been recovered.
Material Culture
Knives, Spoons, and Small Finds
The Allerton collection contains eight knives. While fragmentary, these blades range from 2.21 to 6.52 cm long and 1.41 to 2.17 cm wide. Four spoon handle fragments were also recovered; one is a slip top, two are seal top, and one is a Puritan
108 spoon. These handles range from 4.74 to 11.33 cm long and are 0.46 to 0.87 cm wide.
One additional complete seal top spoon is at the Kingston Public Library. Two other silver fragments may also possibly be spoon handles. Other finds include one partial pair of scissors, one buckle fragment, four clothing fasteners (one additional at
Kingston Public Library), four silver straight pins, and two brass straight pins. The collection also contains two complete beads (Kidd types IVn5 and IIbb1), both of which are multicolored and striped (See Kidd and Kidd 1970 for specific descriptions of types) (Figure 26). Firearm related artifacts include 45 pieces of flint debitage (two additional at the Kingston Public Library), along with 2 gunflints and 1 possible gunflint, 1 possible gunlock, 1 shot mold, and 3 lead shot. Tools in the collection include 2 possible chisels, 2 possible indeterminate tools, and 1 possible wedge. One lead seal is also present in the collection; a second one is located at Kingston Public
Library.
Copper Alloy Sheet Metal
The Allerton site contains a total of 41 pieces of copper alloy sheet metal. Much of this appears to be heavily manipulated, showing signs of scoring, cutting, and riveting. It is possible that much of it was repurposed from kettles as seven pieces are riveted and one piece is possibly a kettle rim. Ehrhardt’s (2005) methods to categorize the sheet metal fragments placed them into rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular forms. Again, some of the fragments might be considered to be what Ehrhardt
109 describes as “blanks,” or preforms of rolled beads, tinkling cones, or other purposefully crafted items.
Figure 25. Tools and utensils from the Allerton site. From top to bottom, left to right: scissor fragments, a shot mold, knife fragment, chisel, slip top spoon stalk, seal top spoon stalk.
Figure 26. Beads from the Allerton site. Pictured left to right, Kidd types IVn5 and IIbb1.
Within the collection, eight pieces of copper alloy sheet metal have been classified as rectangular; two of these are uniform enough to be considered possible rolled bead blanks. I have also specified an “irregular” category, allowing for
110 “wastage” and pieces too corroded or degraded to be categorized as potential blanks to still be assigned an overall shape. Nineteen fragments are irregular rectangular forms, 13 are irregular trapezoids, and 1 is an irregular conical shape (Figure 27).
Overall, the fragments range from 11.6 to 79.5 mm long, 7.9 mm to 48.13 mm wide and 0.4 to 1.67 mm thick.
Figure 27. Sheet metal fragments from the Allerton site.
Two sheet metal fragments are located in the Allerton assemblage at Kingston
Public Library; one is an irregular trapezoidal form and the other is an irregular rectangular form. A few pieces of this sheet metal are of special interest; three pieces are rectangular and have been intentionally folded and cut to create clips (Figure 28).
Two other pieces appear to have been rolled; these may have been intended to be beads. Three pieces appear to be either folded and then unfolded, crushed, or partially folded trapezoidal and conical forms.
111
Figure 28. Possible rolled beads and a clip from the Allerton site.
In an effort to better characterize the metals as a whole, I choose to sample 4 categories: rectangular forms (8 artifacts total, 3 sampled), irregular forms (33 artifacts total, 8 sampled), and outliers of those forms (1 artifacts, 1 sampled). These samples were randomly selected and analyzed using a Natural breaks approach and the methodology specified in the discussion of the copper-alloy sample materials from the Winslow site.
All of the sampled sheet metal seemed to be hot worked, aside from two pieces that were indeterminate. The metal was probably annealed and worked, like the fragments at the other two sites. Hammering in this instance is considered unlikely, as in most cases it is indicated by the irregularity of thickness, and in the
Allerton samples the maximum variance in thickness is only 0.17 mm. None of the artifacts in the sample group appeared to have been cold hammered. While it is apparent that almost all of the sampled fragments had at least one edge that has been cut or snipped, cutting signatures for snips, scissors, or knives were unobservable due to corrosion and weathering. Signs of stress from folding, rolling, and folding to
112 fracture (snap) are seen on 6 artifacts (50 percent of total sample), although intentionality is difficult to determine in this regard. Intentional scoring is seen on two of the sampled pieces, both have two parallel linear score lines creating rectangular shapes (potentially uncut bead blanks?). Four artifacts in the sample have rivet holes and/or rivets (33 percent of the total sample), all of them appear to have been pierced when the metal was cold, two of these rivet holes are non-uniform, the rest appear uniform.
Native Materials
Due to the broad nature of this analysis, my characterization of the Native ceramics recovered is again a simplified one. Of the 41 potsherds in the collection, 18 of them fall into the 1-2 square cm range, 9 of them measure 2-3 square cm, and 13 of them fall into the 3-5 square cm range. Of these, 12 sherds are decorated, which equals 30 percent of the total number of potsherds. Due to this low percentage, and the known increase of decoration on Native ceramics in the colonial period, these ceramics seem to be most likely related to earlier Native occupation of the site. Lithic materials include 44 points or point fragments, 3 stone scrapers, 1 abrading stone, and
2 pieces of fire-cracked rock. Additionally, three stone scrapers, five projectile points, one stone knife fragment, and two stone gorget fragments are located at the Kingston
Public Library. None of the lithic materials from this collection show any indicators that they may date to the post-contact period. The collection does contain small triangular points that date to the Late Woodland, but as with the other lithic
113 assemblages at the Winslow and R.M. sites, separating pre- and post-European arrival materials from one another is very difficult because of the mixed nature of the collections and the complexity and lack of documentation in the excavation notes.
Spatial Analysis of the Allerton Site
James Deetz excavated this site in 1972 in response to impending residential construction, putting the site in immediate danger. At first, controlled excavation techniques with shovels and trowels were employed.
Figure 29. Historic Plan Map of the Allerton site. (Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation)
114 A grid of thirty 5-by-5-ft units was established over the site. Auguring at the site indicated that topsoil was approximately 9 to 12 in deep overall (Figure 29).
Imminent construction then pressured Deetz to less conventional means. He dismantled the grid and had students from Brown University shovel off the entire plow zone into a single pile. Local middle school students screened this dirt, bagging any artifacts recovered.
The team exposed the rock fill of a 17th-century cellar and dug a trench across it finding its limits at about 11 square feet. As they uncovered the cellar’s dry- laid stonewalls, they discovered that the southwest corner of the structure seemed to intersect with a hearth that did not belong to the cellar they were currently excavating.
Further investigation of this feature lead to the discovery of the post molds of the
1630s original Allerton house. This structure was about 6.1 by 6.7 square m (20 by 22 square ft.) and was the first earth fast structure in colonial New England to ever be recovered archaeologically (Deetz and Deetz 2000). Interpretations of this structure are further discussed by Deetz and Deetz (2000a, 2000b; Deetz 1979).
As with the previous sites discussed, the archaeological documentation for the
Allerton site is complicated. Remaining maps and associated provenience information are limited and difficult to decode, and it seems that some may have been lost or maybe misplaced. The collection is also separated, as some of the earliest remains are housed at the Kingston Public Library apart from the majority of the finds at Plimoth
Plantation. The spatial relationships of this site are also complicated to interpret as a later 17th-/early 18th-century house was built on top of some of the earlier 1630s-
115 1650s structure. Artifacts pertaining to this analysis come from the three main areas of EU 2, the earlier 17th-century cellar (Feature 2) and associated areas, the north footing, and the plow zone of both of those areas.
Items recovered in the plow zone of EU 2 include 3 knives, 1 possible gunlock, 1 piece of lead shot, 2 pieces of flint debitage, 1 spoon, 18 pieces of copper alloy sheet metal fragments, 1 copper alloy escutcheon plate (decorative), 1 straight pin, and 1 fragment of a steatite pipe. Artifacts at the Kingston Public library from the plow zone include two stone scrapers, one projectile point, one gunflint, and two indeterminate pipe stems. Items associated with the cellar include one spoon, two clothing fasteners, four silver straight pins, one brass straight pin, three pieces of copper alloy fragments, one possible shot mold, one fragmented pair of scissors, three pieces of flint debitage, two Native potsherds, and eight stone projectile points. Pipe
6 7 stems associated with this level include 1 that measures /64″, 11 that measure /64″, 2
8 that measure /64″, 14 non-measurable pipe fragments. One redware pipe stem was
7 also recovered; it measures /64″ and could possibly be Native made. Artifacts from the cellar area stored at Kingston Public Library include two stone projectile points, one bale seal, and one pipe bowl fragment. Other items designated as recovered from the cellar feature, but not assigned an excavation unit include two additional pieces of brass sheet metal, one piece of flint debitage, and the tip of one stone projectile point.
Artifacts found in association with the north footings adjacent to the cellar are one piece of flint debitage, three fragments of copper alloy sheet metal, one possible chisel, five stone projectile points, and one stone scraper. Pipe stems in association
116 7 with the north footings include three pipe stems that measure /64″ and two other fragments that are indeterminate. Only one stone projectile point in association with the north footings is stored at Kingston Public Library.
Discussion
After reviewing the artifacts from the Allerton site, it seems that this site has the fewest artifacts that point to trade and interaction overall, but the assemblage is also smaller than that of the R.M. and the Winslow sites. The historical documents record that Allerton owned his home from 1628 to 1646 when it was deeded to his son-in-law. This suggests that much of the early material remains of the home were destroyed by the construction of the second structure or that while Allerton may have owned the home until 1646, his tenure there may have been brief (Deetz and Deetz
2000: 220-230). The spatial break down of pertinent materials in the collection (both at Plimoth Plantation and at the Kingston Public Library) reveals that the cellar seems to have the most artifacts of the areas examined (28 percent).
117 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
“Never in the history of the World, have cultures so different and so unprepared for each other come into such ineluctable collision” – Charles Hudson (Hudson 1976: 97)
Archaeologists have demonstrated that material culture can be engaged to better understand multicultural settings. Material evidence of colonial-Native interactions can be identified, and with them, the spaces in which these interactions occurred (Turgeon 1997). The historical accounts and the archaeological record at
Plymouth and otherwise make it clear that material culture was used by both colonists and Native people as: (1) a means of communication between groups that was imbued with symbolic meaning, (2) economic items to be traded for other goods or services, and (3) objects that crossed cultural lines and barriers, adopting new meanings in the process. The Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites contain material evidence of these interactions – some subtle and some more obvious. The identification of the material culture of interactions is particularly important at colonial sites, because they account for a Native presence that is typically silent in archaeological and historical interpretations. This presencing may be explicit, in that the objects may point to
Native people on-site in regular (as laborers) or even just intermittent (as trading partners) ways, or implicit, in that the items exist as a result of colonial residents 118 living in a Native landscape and engaging with materials that circulate through it.
This research does not claim that all of the items discussed in this analysis were explicitly intended for or part of colonial-Native interactions, as many of the types discussed are ambiguous. Native people and colonists alike used items such as scissors, knives, and straight pins—determining who used what in a colonial setting is difficult at best. Rather, this analysis should be seen as attempt to tease out a more inclusive and broader interpretation of these collections, situating object types and sometimes specific objects themselves in their cross-cultural circulations and genealogies (Grumet 1995:19, Stahl 2010). Assemblages in colonial sites like
Plymouth are fundamentally about and situated within multicultural interactions, and objects that are Native in origin (e.g., stone tools), Native in destination (e.g., glass trade beads), or even Native in co-use (e.g., scissors, firearms) deserve attention for these intersecting roles. These multicultural contexts allow us to better address colonial landscapes and the very nature of the interactions themselves that helped create and reify colonial identities through material culture.
Site Comparisons
Some simple comparisons between the discussed archaeological sites and their assemblages can facilitate a more nuanced understanding of colonial-Native interactions that took place at, and because of, these sites. Some fundamental suppositions are helpful to remember here.
119 First, affluent and socio-politically influential colonists owned all of these sites. Winslow was a colonial Governor, Clark(e) was a successful merchant, and
Allerton served as Governor Bradford’s assistant and had many of his own business ventures (albeit none successful) all over the colonies of North America. Therefore, these sites cannot necessarily be seen as representative of colonial-Native interactions for the colony as a whole.
Second, these sites represent overlapping, but still varying, durations of time and function. The earlier occupation at the Allerton site dates from the 1630s to the
1650s, but also has materials from the second occupation that dates primarily to the third quarter of the 17th century and into the 18th. The R.M. site does have a large number of pipe stems likely dating to 1630-1650, but the known date of destruction for the garrisoned home is in the 1670s. Finally, the Winslow site dates primarily to the last quarter of the 17th century and was destroyed probably right before the turn of the 18th century. Together, these sites span from the early 1630s to 1700, a period of rapid flux for both Native and colonists. We know that Native acceptance and preferences of European goods changed over time and that socio-political factors affected colonial-Native trade; these variations must have impacted the recovered material culture.
Third, we cannot overlook the individuals and the functions of the sites themselves. Allerton was a businessman, who had forays into the trade enterprise, but the small amount of early materials from the site sets it apart from the other two. This may be related to the placement of the second structure on top of the first, or the
120 possibility that Allerton’s presence, or business dealings, on the property were limited. Aside from these facts, no documentary evidence has been found that could potentially bolster interpretations of this site as multicultural during Allerton’s, or subsequently his daughter and son-in-law’s, occupation.
William Clark(e)’s garrisoned home can be implicated with some certainty as a place of interaction with Native people. Historical documents suggest that Clark(e) had ongoing business dealings with Native people leading up to King Philip’s War.
This evidence implies that this may have been a fluid and complex environment where Native and colonial neighbors interacted and exchanged goods – or at least had the anticipation of it – on a regular basis.
Governor Josiah Winslow’s home may be the most complex of these sites as it was structured to impose an air of affluence and colonial power (Goldstein 2001).
Evidence suggests that a Native servant who was possibly a prisoner of war lived in the house, and that conversely, Native dignitaries visited the home as guests.
Obviously, power dynamics in relation to Native people in this case must have been tenuous, fluid, and situational. Knowing that a Native man lived in this colonial environment also raises questions about how that individual may have manifested himself through material culture and about how separate or intertwined colonial and
Native spaces were at the site. This manifests the kind of changed perspective suggested by Silliman (2010a) that might be possible if we look more closely at colonially-dominated household contexts that had fleeting or somewhat minimal
Native presence.
121 After analyzing the collections, some interesting comparisons can be drawn based on the spatial data. Both the Allerton and the Winslow sites have concentrations of the materials in question. At the Winslow site, artifacts clustered on the possible burnt remains of an outbuilding. At the Allerton site, they clustered in and near the early cellar hole. Clustering of artifacts in these areas is not surprising as they were typically used to store goods (Deetz and Deetz 2000). The documentary record also supports that traders often did business out of an outbuilding dedicated to the storage of goods on their property (Deetz and Deetz 2001).
The R.M. materials did not cluster as conclusively as those at the Allerton and Winslow sites. I suggest that this may be because the Clark(e) home was a place of more intensive trade and interaction than the other sites with a more fluid and dynamic use of space. Intensive use of this property for trade over a long period of time would result in the wider distribution of artifacts of interaction across the site.
Clark(e) was an opportunistic merchant, not a colonial leader like Allerton and
Winslow; his property would probably have been less bounded by notions power dynamics. The documentary evidence, as well as the larger number of artifacts of hybridity recovered from this site than from the others, supports this claim.
Material Culture
Materials at the sites overall show overwhelming similarities and a few interesting differences. Similarities are to be expected, as much of the available
122 trading wares of the time were of similar manufacture (Gibson 1980). Again, I restate here
the range in ambiguity of these items, and the possibility/probability that they were not all intended for trade and use by and for Native people. However, it is critical that we examine and interrogate these items in colonial contexts instead of assuming the most obvious interpretive meanings. Too often, items that can be identified as trade goods are only recognized as such at trading posts or in Native contexts. This analysis is trying to broaden the possible interpretive potential for these colonial sites to include other narratives and meanings that would otherwise go unrecognized.
Clothing Related Items
One of the most notable things about the materials recovered from this category is the lack of thimbles (only one recovered from the R.M. site), which are well known items of Native reappropriation into tinkling cones. The reason for this is unknown, although, the absence of thimbles may be compensated by the abundance of manipulated copper-alloy sheet metal. This sheet metal may have been manipulated into any number of desirable forms, such as tinkling cones. The only other significant outlier of these comparisons is the high number of buckles (41) recovered from the Winslow site. While some of these may have been intended for trade, this higher recovery probably relates to the large amount of horse furniture also present in the collection.
123
Clothing Related Items
Buttons Buckles Thimbles Straight Pins Hook and Eye Closures
Winslow 7 41 0 16 4 R.M. 7 5 1 6 18 whole, 31 frags.
Collection Allerton 0 1 0 6 5 whole Archaeological Archaeological Number of Artifacts Table 1. Clothing Related items from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton Sites.
Of particular interest are lead seals and discs recovered from the R.M. site and the record of a “lead pit” by excavators (Fernstrom and Hornblower 1954). This provides excellent evidence for the use of this site as a trading house and for the presence of a common import that does not typically survive in the archaeological record: textiles. Historical accounts support the use of European textiles and the leads seals that often accompanied them for Native styles of dress and purposes. The discovery of a “lead pit” and of blank, pierced, and decorated lead discs shows the intentional manipulation of lead. The polka-dot, fish scale, incised cruciform designs, punctured discs, and crude lead scrap are all evidence of decorative re-purposing of lead into new forms for new functions. Examples of re-purposed lead for everything from Native made buttons to effigies have been found archaeologically from sites across southern New England (Loren 2008:99; Gibson 1980).
Copper Alloy Sheet Metal
This category has more similarities than differences across the three sites. This may suggest that effective methods and desired forms/objects were regionally well known. Not surprisingly, irregularly shaped fragments dominate the assemblage at
124 each site. This is logical, as finished forms were more likely to be taken away from these sites, leaving behind primarily wastage and discarded fragments from production. Of the uniform pieces recovered, rectangular shapes (possible blanks for rolled beads or clips) were the most prevalent at all sites. Only the Allerton site contains what looks like a squashed trapezoidal form, possibly a tinkling cone.
Copper Alloy Sheet: Shape Rectangular, Trapezoidal, Trapezoida Uniform* Rectangular Uniform* l Irregular Total: Winslow 11 13 0 4 27 55 R.M. 8 3 0 12 22 45 Allerton 2 6 1 0 32 41
Archaeological Collection Archaeological Number of Artifacts *Possible Blanks Table 2. Copper alloy sheet metal by shape from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites.
The majority of the sheet metal exhibits similar attributes. Lengths of the sheet metal fragments overall range from 8.8 to 97.8 mm, widths range from 4.5 to
55.9 mm, and thicknesses ranges from 0.05 to 1.67 mm. All three assemblages include evidence that the sheet metal was harvested from kettles including rivets/uniform rivet holes, rims, ears, lugs, and other kettle parts. The dominant forms of manipulation are annealing, hammering, scoring, and cutting. No tool-specific cutting signatures were identifiable due to corrosion.
125 Copper Alloy Sheet Scrap
Artifacts with
Avg. Length Avg. Width Avg. Thickness Rivets/Holes Winslow 49.3 24.4 1.2 17 R.M. 23 14 0.77 10 Collection Allerton 29.5 18.2 0.74 7 Archaeological Archaeological Avg. Overall 33.93 18.87 0.90 11.33
Number of Artifacts/Measurements in mm Table 3. Characterization of copper alloy sheet metal from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites.
Particularly interesting are the pieces of sheet metal that have been manipulated into new forms such as projectile points, pendants or tokens, rolled beads and blanks, and clips. These artifacts are examples of how European materials were selectively used for qualities and purposes that are distinctly Native. Archaeological and historical accounts of utilitarian kettles being worked and re-shaped into items of adornment imbued with cosmological meaning are known throughout colonial
America; the presence of these materials in the analyzed collections asserts not only a
Native presence at the site, but possibly Native participation and influence in the manufacture of these items.
Tools, Knives, Spoons, and Small Finds
In comparing the numbers and types of tools found at the sites, it is important that the largest number of tools found were axe heads (seven at the R.M. site) and wedges (seven at the Winslow site). These were some of the more desirable tool types for exchange with Native people. Knives are one of the better-historically situated trade items overall; all of the collections analyzed contained a significant number of
126 knives relative to other items of interest. Spoons were also found at all sites, and in especially high numbers at the Winslow site, where the minimum number of spoons recovered is ten. Small finds show the presence of copper-alloy “curtain rings” at two sites, which were known items re-appropriated by Native people, with particularly high recovery form the Winslow site. Of particular interest is the seal top spoon stalk from the Winslow site that was ground down to a point. The function of this item is unknown, although use as a make shift awl or even as a hairpin are possible options.
Tools Knives Blade Bone/Ivory Sickle/ Fragments Handles Axe Wedge Awl Indet. File Scythe Chisel Winslow 20 10 2 7 1 4 2 1 0 R.M. 13 2 7 2 1 0 0 1 1 Allerton 8 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2
Archaeological Collection Archaeological Number of Artifacts Table 4. Tools from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites.
Spoons By Type Indet. Min. # of Seal Top Trifid End Puritan Slip Top Pap Handle/Bowl Spoons Winslow 3 1 1 4 1 6 10 R.M. 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 Collection
Archaeological Archaeological Allerton 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 Number of Artifacts Table 5: Spoons from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites.
Knives and Handles
Blade Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Fragments Length Width Bone Handles Length Width Winslow 20 5.88 1.78 10 7.66 1.58 R.M. 13 4.85 1.65 2 5.45 1.51 Allerton 8 3.65 1.76 1 2.45 1.6
Archaeological Collection Archaeological Number of Artifacts /Measurements in cm Table 6. Knives and bone handles from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites.
127 Small Finds
Rings Fishhooks Hawk Bell Mouth Harps Winslow 13.5 3 0 1 R.M. 4.5 4 1 1 Collection Allerton 0 0 0 0 Archaeological Archaeological Number of Artifacts Table 7. Assorted small trade related finds from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites. Firearms
Finally, all of the collections contain gun parts and firearm related materials.
Historical documents state that colonial governments unilaterally banned the sale of firearms to Native people from the mid-late 1630s to about 1650 (Bradley 2006: 79).
However, archaeological and documentary sources indicate that Native people had access to guns and their accompaniments (see chapter 4). It is difficult to conceive of
Governor Josiah Winslow as supplying arms and ammunition to Native people, as his tenure in office was overburdened with tensions between he and Massasoit’s successor King Philip (Metacomet), ultimately resulting in war, because of this, the firearm related materials at this site were most-likely not intended for use by Native people. However, this does not preclude Native involve in the production of gunflints, especially considering the known presence of a Native servant in the household.
I have already discussed the probability of Native people recognizing the
Clark(e) garrison as a place to obtain firearms and their accouterments; it is possible that Clark(e) may have supplied local Native people with these goods before the growing tensions of King Philip’s War erupted. The re-purposing of lead and flint for uniquely Native intentions must also be taken into consideration when discussing
128 these materials. The possible steatite button mold from the Winslow site, and the numerous lead discs at the R.M. site, suggest that lead may have also been utilized for activities other than shot making. All in all, it is difficult to state for whom the numerous gun parts, flint, and lead shot were intended and who used them.
Firearms, Flints, and Shot Flint Gun Parts Related Tools/Items Gun Flints Debitage Lead Shot Shot Mold Winslow 13 6 10 93 197 2 R.M. 2 4 55 1095 23 1 Collection
Archaeological Archaeological Allerton 1 0 4 45 3 1 Number of Artifacts Table 8. Firearm related materials from the Winslow, R.M., and Allerton sites.
Native Materials
An analysis of the Native-associated materials at all three sites is particularly complicated by inadequate provenience information. All three sites contain materials that date to the Late Woodland Period, such as small triangular points and ceramics, but discerning whether or not these temporally and spatially overlap with colonial contexts is difficult. That said, evidence for interaction is clearer in the lithic artifacts from some of the sites. The possible stone buttonmold at the Winslow site and the stone pipes with forms that resemble European clay pipes at the R.M. site show obvious signs of interaction.
The stone buttonmold from the Winslow site provides evidence for the repurposing of lead in this region, and brings up questions of the intensity of Native participation and presence at the site. Were Native people actively involved in the manipulation of lead at the site? Are lead seals and discs, both decorated and
129 undecorated, present at the R.M. and Allerton sites indicative of similar manufacture processes? The manipulation of a European substance using a Native material (stone) shows a creative ingenuity and knowledge of metal working that transcends cultural boundaries. Although it is difficult to state with certainty who exactly was using this buttonmold and making these discs, similar buttonmolds, lead discs, and even similar decorative motifs have been recovered from other Wampanoag sites in Marshfield,
Massachusetts, and in Rhode Island at Burr’s Hill (Loren 2008:99). Due to this association with Native sites, it is not improbable that Native people may have been making and using these materials at these colonial sites, suggesting prolonged interaction and familiarity with their European neighbors.
The stone pipes in European forms pose similar questions about manufacture and use. Were Native people carving European forms out of their traditional materials to trade for other desired goods? It seems unlikely that Europeans would have been skilled and experienced enough to utilize Native soapstone with such precision, especially since European clay pipes were imported in such ubiquity. Is it possible that Europeans liked the novelty of stone pipes? The meaning of these objects must also be called into question, as tobacco use among Native people was at one time considered sacred; does the crossing of these pipes into European hands indicate a change in meaning for tobacco use? Either way, the presence of objects with such hybrid qualities suggests a multicultural environment where materials, skills, and forms were exchanged and adopted by both groups.
130 The ceramics are challenging to interpret as well, but some broader questions can be used for these materials. Is there evidence that Europeans were receiving goods (probably foodstuffs) in Native ceramic vessels, or were Native people using ceramics at these colonial sites? No signs of hybridized European and Native styles or vessel forms are currently in the collections, and the recovery of potsherds was low and the size of potsherds quite small. This lack of evidence for colonial-Native interaction, along with the known presence of pre-European Native deposits at the site, leads to the suspicion that the ceramics in the collections probably pre-date the colonial assemblages. However, this inference should be tempered with the understanding that at least two of these sites (Winslow and R.M.) were targeted by local pothunters, so more intact vessels may have been taken before excavation took place.
Daily Practice and the Shaping of Colonial Identities
Finally, I would like to discuss some of the possible implications for the artifacts that I have addressed in the shaping of colonial sites and identities. It can be difficult to detect the presence of Native people on colonial sites, but using practice we can attempt to interpret how colonists and Native people alike used objects and practices in their daily lives to construct and reify identities (Lightfoot et al. 1998:
201; Loren 2000, 2008; Silliman 2010a). I propose that the objects from this analysis can serve as proxies for Native people and Native-produced material culture present and circulating in the colonial landscape. Using this perspective I can assert the
131 presence of Native people at each of the sites, but also in the larger landscape of
Plymouth Colony.
This idea of “presencing” in conjunction with habitus can nuance and broaden our understanding of these colonial-Native relationships. Objects can be viewed as proxies for colonial practices surrounding the anticipation of trade with Native people. Colonists were engaged in activities that were centered on supplying and producing objects for trade. The evidence of Native-destination objects shows that colonial people were aware of and impacted by Native culture, and were preparing to meet the specific desires of Native traders. Hybrid artifacts reflect multicultural influences and the circulation of Native people and Native-produced-objects in colonial spheres (sheet metal forms, stone pipes, etc.). These objects speak to the burgeoning culture of colonial New England where both colonists and Native people formed new identities as part of making “sense of ‘others’ and [to] best suit their own interests” (Lightfoot et al. 1998:201).
My intention here is not to homogenize these contexts; in fact, it is to show how pluralistic these spaces and the larger landscape as a whole was. I exhibited this by offering documentary evidence that suggests alternate meanings and uses that objects might have acquired as they cross cultural lines, becoming “invested with a significance which they may have lacked in earlier incarnation” (Cohen 1987:96).
Possible critics of this argument may try to emphasize that these objects are primarily
European in origin, and although they may point to the anticipation of trade, they do not necessarily intimate Native presence/meanings in these colonial spaces. After all,
132 the archaeological provenience data is dubious at best and previous interpretations of these sites have considered them to be colonial sites on top of earlier Native ones.
However, while the provenience information is not strong enough to situate Native and colonial materials tightly together temporally, the evidence (objects with multiethnic influences, trade goods, and historical documentation) for mutual Native- colonial influence and interaction remain and reflect the larger pluralistic contexts that go beyond just discrete objects, interactions, or episodes of “contact”.
In conclusion, I have attempted to show that material culture and documentary evidence demonstrate the presence of Native people, particularly the Wampanoag, in the entangled larger landscape of Plymouth Colony. This research has taken a postcolonial approach, looking for Native meanings and uses for European material culture and in some cases, vice versa. This is in an effort to redress the silencing of
Native people in the historical and archaeological record. My interpretation of these assemblages suggests that Native groups and Europeans used material culture – sometimes quite similar if not identical materials and objects – on a regular basis to confront and navigate colonialism and its inherent contentions, fluctuating power differentials, and culturally fluid contexts. Both Native and European groups used material culture to fulfill their own respective purposes, practices, and desires. The sites specifically examined support models that view colonial contexts as culturally flexible and somewhat ambiguous. Material culture from these sites suggests the blurring and negotiation of cultural lines and power in a burgeoning colonial
133 landscape, as Native people and Europeans utilized each other’s goods, sometimes blending forms and materials to create something entirely new.
134 WORKS CITED
Ahmad, A. 1992 In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, London, UK. 1995 The Politics of Literary Postcoloniality. Race and Class 36(3):1-20.
Altham, E. 1997 Emmanual Altham to Sir Edward Altham. In Three Early Visitors to Early Plymouth: Letters about the Pilgrim Settlement in New England During its First Seven Years, edited by S. V. James Jr. pp. 21-59. Applewood Books, Bedford, Massachusetts.
Atalay, S. 2006 Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly 30(3): 280-310. 2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Baker, J. 1992 Haunted by the Pilgrims. In The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in Honor of James Deetz, edited by A. E. Yentsch and M.C. Beaudry, pp. 343-358. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Baart, J.M. 2012 Cloth Seals at Iroquois Sites. Northeast Historical Archaeology (34)1:77-88.
Bhabha, H. 1994 The Location of Culture. Routledge, London. 1992 Postcolonial Criticism. In Redrawing the Boundaries: The Transformation of English and American Literary Studies. Edited by S. Greenblatt and G.B. Gunn, pp. 437-65. Modern Language Association of America, New York, New York.
Billings K. 1980 Beads of Shell and Glass. In Burr’s Hill: a Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, S. G. Gibson, editor, pp. 118-123. The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology at Brown University. Providence, Rhode Island.
Binzen, T., M. T. Mulholland, S. Charles, C. Donta, and K. Curran 2008 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Kingston, Massachusetts. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, Massachusetts.
135
Binzen, T. L. and C.L. Donta 2002 A Native American Archaeological Site in the Plymouth Commemorative Landscape. Northeast Anthropology 64:34-42.
Bragdon, K. 1988 The Material Culture of the Christian Indians of New England, 1650–1775. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, M.C. Beaudry, editor, pp. 126– 131. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1996 Native People of Southern New England. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Beaudry, M.C. 1980 Spoons from the Burr’s Hill Collection. In Burr’s Hill: a Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, S. G. Gibson, editor, pp. 72-77 . The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology at Brown University. Providence, Rhode Island.
2006 Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Beaudry, M. C. and D. C. George 1987 Old data, new findings: 1940s archaeology at Plymouth reexamined. American Archeology 6(1): 20-30.
Beaudry, Mary C., K. J. Goldstein, and C. Chartier 2003 Archaeology of the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, In Avalon Chronicles: The English in America 1497-1696, 8, J. A. Tuck and B. Gaulton editors, pp. 155- 185, Colony of Avalon Foundation, Ferryland, Newfoundland.
Blanchette, J. 1980 Firearms. In Burr’s Hill: A Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, S. G. Gibson, editor, pp. 67-71. The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology at Brown University. Providence, Rhode Island.
Boisvert, R.A. 1993 The 17th Century Native American Presence at the Hormell Site, Freedom, New Hampshire. Paper presented at the 60th Annual meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Bangor, Maine.
Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
136
Bradford, W. 1970 Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647, S. E. Morison, editor. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.
Bradley, J. W. 1983 Blue Crystals and Other Trinkets: Glass Beads from 16th and Early 17th Century new England. In Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference, C. F. Hayes III, editors, pp. 29-39. Rochester museum and Science Center Research Record 16. 2006 Before Albany: An Archaeology of Native-Dutch Relations in the Capital Region 1600-1664. New York State Museum Bulletin 509.
Bragdon, K. 1988 The Material Culture of the Christian Indians of New England, 1650–1775. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, M. C. Beaudry, editor, pp. 126– 131. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1983 Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community. Academic Press, New York, New York
Brain, J.P. 1979 Tunica Treasure. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 71. Cambridge and Salem, Massachusetts
Brenner, E. M. 1988 Sociopolitical Implications of Mortuary Ritual Remains in Seventeenth- Century Native Southern New England. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States..M. P. Leone and P. B. Potter Jr., editors, pp. 47-81. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Brereton, J. 1968 [1602] A briefe and True Relation of the Discoverie of the North Part of Virginia. Reprinted in Sailors’ Narratives of the Voyages along the New England Coast 1524-1624, G. P. Winship, editor, B. Franklin, New York, New York.
Buchanan, W.T., Jr. 1984 The Trigg Site, City of Radford, Virginia. Special Publication 14, Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, Virginia.
Camp, H. B. 1975 Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, Maine: 1965-74. Maine State Museum, Augusta, Maine.
137
Ceci, Lynn 1990 Radio Carbon Dating "Village" Sites in Coastal New York: Settlement Pattern Changes in the Midddle to late Woodland. Man in the Northeast 39:1-28.
Chartier, C.S. 2012 Gunflint and Flint Debitage Analysis from the C01/Rm/Clarke Site, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project.
Cohen, A.P. 1987 Whalsay: Symbol, Segment and Boundary in a Shetland Island Community. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.
Cook, L. J. 1985 The Rhode Island Burial Survey, 2 Vols. Office of Public Archaeology Report of Investigations, No. 28, Center for Archaeological Studies, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts,
Cowie, E. R. and J. B. Petterson 1992 Archaeological Phase Testing of the Weston Project (FERC No. 2325), Somerset County, Maine. Draft report on file, Maine Historic Perservation Commission, Augusta, Maine
Cranmer, L.E. 1990 Cushnoc: The History and Archaeology of Plymouth Colony Traders on the Kennebec. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology, No 7. Maine Archaeological Society.
Cusick, J. 1998 Historiography of acculturation: An evaluation of concepts and their application in archaeology. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change and Archaeology, edited by James Cusick, pp. 23-43. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale Illinois.
Deagan, K. 2002 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean 1500-1800, Volume 2: Personal Portable Possessions. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Deetz, J. 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Books, Garden City, New York.
138 1979 Plymouth Colony architecture: archaeological evidence from the seventeenth century, in Architecture in Colonial Massachusetts: a Conference held by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, September 19 and 20, 1974, 4, pp. 3-59. Published by the University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, for the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts..
Deetz, J. and P. S. Deetz 2000 The Times of Their Lives: Life, Love and Death in Plymouth Colony. Anchor Books, New York, New York.
Demos, J. 2000 A Little Commonwealth, Family Life in Plymouth Colony. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
DePaoli, N., M. Farkas, P. Stott, S. Zimmerman, and J.W. Bradley 2007 Historic & Archaeological Resources of Southeast Massachusetts: A Framework for Preservation Decisions. Report on file at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, Massachusetts. de Roever, M. 1980 Merchandises for New Netherland: A Look at Dutch Articles for Barter with the Native American Population. In One Man’s Trash Is Another Man’s Treasure: The Metamorphosis of the European Utensil in the New World, pp. 71-93. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam.
Dietler, M. 2005 The archaeology of colonization and the colonization of archaeology: Theoretical challenges from an ancient Mediterranean colonial encounter. In The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, Gil J. Stein, editor, pp. 33-68. School of American Research Press, Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Dilliplane, T. L. 1980 European Trade Kettles. In Burr’s Hill: a Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, pp. 75-83. S. G. Gibson, editor. The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Dillon, P. 1980 Trade Fabrics. In Burr’s Hill: A Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, pp. 100-107. S. G. Gibson, editor. The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
139 Dirlik, A. 1994 The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism. In Contemporary Postcolonial Theory, P. Mongia. editor, pp. 294–320. Arnold, London, UK.
1999 The Past as Legacy and Project: Postcolonial Criticism in the Perspective of Indigenous historicism. In Contemporary Native American Political Issues, edited by T.R. Johnson, vol. 73-97. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Ehrhardt, K. L. 2005 European metals in Native hands: rethinking the dynamics of technological change, 1640-1683. University Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Faulkner, A. and Faulkner, G. 1987 The French at Pentagoet, 1635-1674:An Archaeological Portrait of the Acadian Frontier. The Maine Historic Preservation Commission and the New Brunswick Museum, Augusta and St. John, New Brunswick, Maine.
Fernstrom, K. D. Jr. and H. Hornblower II 1954 The R.M. Site, Plymouth, Massachusetts. FR 1225, Report on File at Plimoth Plantation Library, Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Foster D. W., V. B. Kenyon, and G.P. Nicholas II 1981 Ancient Lifeways at the Smyth Site NH38-4. New Hampshire Archaeologist 22(2).
Francis, P. Jr. 1996 The Beads That Did Not Buy Manhattan Island. In One Man’s Trash Is Another Man’s Treasure: The Metamorphosis of the European Utensil in the New World, pp. 53–70. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam.
Gary, J. 2005 “Functioning in Another Register”: Manifestations of Colonial interactions in the Material Culture of Sylvester Manor. Master’s Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts. 2007 Material Culture and Multi-Cultural Interactions at Sylvester Manor. Northeast Historical Archaeology 36: 100-112.
Gibson, S.G., Ed. 1980 Burr’s Hill: a Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island. The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
140 Giddens, A. 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Macmillan Press, New York, New York.
Gomes, P. J. 1985 Henry Hornblower II. Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (3)97:157-160.
Goodby, R. G. 1994 Style, Meaning, and History: A Contextual Study of the 17th Century Native American Ceramics From Southeastern New England. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode island. 2002 Reconsidering the Shantok Tradition. In A Lasting Impression: Coastal, Lithic, and Ceramic Research in New England Archaeology, edited by J. E. Kerber, pp. 141-154. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.
Gookin, D. 1806(1674) Historical Collections of the Indians on New England. Reprinted in Collections of the Massachussets Historical Society, 1(3):141-229. 1970(1792) Historical Collections of the Indians of New England. J. H. Fiske, editor, Towtaid, Massachusetts.
Gosden, C. 2001 Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of Culture, Identity, and Knowledge. In Archaeological Theory Today, Ed. by I. Hodder, pp.241-261. Blackwell, London, UK. 2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Gramsci, A. 1929-37 [1971] Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith. International Publishers, New York, New York.
Grumet, R.S. 1995 Historic Contact: Indian People and Colonists in Today’s Northeastern United States in the Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Gullapalli, P. 2010 Heterogeneous Encounters: Colonial Histories and Archeological Experiences. In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, M. Liebmann, and U. Rizvi, editors, pp. 35-52. AltaMira Press, Landham, Maryland.
141 Hart, S. 2004 Mixed Assemblages and Indigenous Agents: Decolonizing Pine Hill. Northeast Anthropology 68:57–72.
Hamell, G.R. 1983 Trading in metaphors: the magic of beads. In Proc. 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conf., ed. CF Hayes III, pp. 5-28. Rochester, New York..
Herbster, H., S. Cherau and V. Adams 1995 Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey Wal-Mart Project, Plymouth, MA. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Submitted to Wal-Mart Stores c/o Sumner Schein Architects and Engineers, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts..
Herskovits, M. J. 1937 Significance of the study of acculturation for anthropology. American Anthropologist 39(2): 259-264.
Hornblower, H. H. 1943 The status of colonial archaeology in Massachusetts in 1941. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin 4:41. 1950 Pilgrim sites in the Old Colony area. Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 9:9-10.
Hudson, C. 1976 The Southeastern Indians. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Huey, P. R. 1985 An Historic Event at the Schuyler Flatts in 1643. Ms. In author’s possession. 1988 Aspects of Continuity and Change in Colonial Dutch Material Culture at Fort Orange, 1641-1664. UMI, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jacobs, J. and M. D. Shattuck 1996 Beavers for Drink, Land for Arms: Some Aspects of the Dutch Indian Trade in New Netherland. In One Man’s Trash Is Another Man’s Treasure: The Metamorphosis of the European Utensil in the New World, pp. 95-113. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam.
Jacobson, J. 1980 Burial Ridge: Archaeology at New York City’s Largest Prehistoric Cemetery. Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences, New York, New York.
142 Johannsen, C.B. 1980 European Trade Goods and Wampanoag Culture in the Seventeenth Century. In Burr’s Hill: a Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, pp. 25-33. S. G. Gibson, editor, The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Johnson, E. S. 2000 Community and Confederation: A political Geography of Contact Period Southern New England. In The Archaeological Northeast, editors M. A. Levine, K. E. Sassaman, & M. S. Nassaney. pp. 155–168. Bergin and Garvey. Westport, Connecticut.
Johnson, E. and J. Bradley 1987 The Bark Wigwams Site: An Early Seventeenth Century Component in Central Massachusetts. Man in the Northeast 33:1-26.
Karklins, K. 1974 Seventeenth Century Dutch Beads. Historical Archaeology 8:64–82. 1982 Dutch Trade Beads in North America. In Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference.
Kent, B.C 1984 Susquehanna’s Indians. Anthropological Series, No. 6. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Kenyon, V. 1983 Campbell Site Survey Report. Report on File, New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources, Concord, Massachusetts.
Kerber, J. E., A. Leveveillee, and R.L. Greenspan 1989 An Unusual Dog Burial Feature at the Lambert Farm Site, Warwick, Rhode Island. Archaeology of Eastern North America 17:165–174.
Kidd, K. E., and M. A. Kidd 1970 Classification System for Glass Beads for the use of Field Archaeologists. In Canadian Historic Sites; Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History. pp. 45- 89.
Lightfoot, K. G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2): 199–21.
143
Lightfoot, K.G., A. Martinez, and A.M. Schiff 1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in the Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity, 63(2): 199-222.
Liebmann, M. 2010 Introduction: The intersections of archaeology and postcolonial theory. In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, Edited by Liebmann, M. and U. Rizvi pp. 1-20. AltaMira Press, Landham, Maryland.
Loren, D.D. 2000 The intersection of colonial policy and colonial practice: Creolization on the eighteenth-century Louisiana/Texas frontier. Historical Archaeology 34: 85–98. 2001 Social skins: Orthodoxies and practices of dressing in the early colonial lower Mississippi Valley. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 172–189. 2008 In Contact: Bodies and Spaces in the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Eastern Woodlands. AltaMira Press, New York, New York. 2010 The Archaeology of Clothing and Bodily Adornment in Colonial America. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
MacCord, H.A.,Sr. 1977 Trade Goods from the Trigg Site, Radford, Virginia. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers [1975] 10: 60-68.
Marten C. 1970 The Wampanoags in the Seventeenth Century: An Ethnohistorical Survey. Occasional Papers in Old Colony Studies, Number 2/Dec. 1970, Published by Plimoth Plantation Inc., Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Historical Commission 1981 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Plymouth. Report on file at the Massachussetts Historical Commision, Boston, Massachusetts.
McBride, K.A. 1984 The Prehistory of the Lower Connecticut Valley. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 1990 The Historical Archaeology of the Mashantucket Pequots, 1637-1900: A preliminary Analysis. In The Pequots in Southern New England: the Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation, edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and James D. Wherry, pp. 96-116. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
144 McMahan, J.D. 2014 Lead Seals. Castle Hill Archaeological Project. http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/castlehill/chpteleven.htm.
Miller, C.L., and G.R. Hamell 1986 A New Perspective on Indian-White Contact: Cultural Symbols and Colonial Trade. The Journal of American History 73(2):311–328.
Murkherjee, M. 1996 Interrogating Postcolonialism. In Postcolonialism: Theory, Text, and Context, H. Trividi and M. Mukherjee, editors, pp. 3-11. Indian Institute of Advanced Study, New Delhi, India.
Murray, T. 2004 Epilogue: An Archaeology of Indigenous/Non-Indigenous Australia from 1788. In After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia, ed. by R. Harrison and C Williamson, pp. 213-223. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Nanepashemet and J.W. Bradley 1996 Maps and Dreams: Native Americans and European Discovery. In One Man’s Trash Is Another Man’s Treasure: The Metamorphosis of the European Utensil in the New World, pp. 27–40. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam.
Nassaney, M. S. 2002 The Material Lives of Native Men and Women in Seventeenth Century Southeastern New England. Copies available from the John Nicholas Brown Center for the Study of American Civilization, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 2004 Native American gender politics and material culture in seventeenth-century southeastern New England. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3): 334-367.
Nassaney, M. S., and M. Volmar 2003 Lithic Artifacts in a 17th Century Native New England. In Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era, edited by Charles R Cobb, pp. 89–104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Noël Hume, I. 1970 A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A Knopf, New York, New York.
Parry, B. 2004 Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Critique. Routledge, New York, New York,
145 Patterson, T. 2010 A brief history of postcolonial theory and implications for archaeology. In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, M. Liebmann and U. Rizvi, editors, pp. 21-34. AltaMira Press. Lanham, Maryland.
Preucel, R.W. and C. N. Cipolla 2008 Indigenous and postcolonial archaeologies. In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, edited by M. Liebmann and U. Rizvi , editors, pp. 129-140. AltaMira Press. Lanham, Maryland.
Prins, H.E.L. 1986 The Most Convenient Place for Trade: A Discussion of the Kennebec/Cushnoc Controversy. The Kennebec Proprietor: Magazine of the Fort Western Museum 3(1): 4-9.
Prins H.E.L., and B. J. Bourque 1987 Norridgewock: Village Translocation on New England-Acadian Frontier. Man in the Northeast 33:137-158.
Ritchie, D. 1980 Lithic, Bone and Antler Artifacts. In Burr’s Hill: a Seventeenth Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, edited by Susan G. Gibson, pp. 34-49. The Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Rizvi, U. 2008 Decolonizing methodologies as strategies of practice: Operationalizing the postcolonial critique in the archaeology of Rajasthan. In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, M. Liebmann and U. Rizvi, editors, pp. 109-128. AltaMira Press. Lanham, Maryland.
Rubertone, P. 2000 The Historical Archaeology of Native Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 452-446. 2001 Retelling Narragansett lives. In Grave Undertakings: An Archaeology of Roger Williams and the Narragansett Indians, pp. 132-164. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Rowlandson, M. 1953 [1682] The Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. 1953 Lancaster, Tercentery. Edited Chapman Billies, Sandwich, Massachusetts.
Said, E. 1978 Orientalism: Western Concepts of the Orient. Pantheon, New York, New York. 146
Salisbury, N. 1982 The Indians of New England. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, Indiana.
Schambach, F. and H. Bailey 1974 The Purcell Site: Evidence of a Massacre on Cape Cod. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 34(30-4): 18-23.
Shannon, T. J. 1996 Dressing for Success on the Mohawk Frontier: Hendrick, William Johnson, and the Indian Fashion. William and Mary Quarterly 53(1): 13-42.
Silliman, S. W. 2005 Culture contact or colonialism? Challenges in the archaeology of Native North America. American Antiquity 70(1):55-74. 2009 Change and Continuity, Practice and Memory: Native American Persistence in Colonial New England. American Antiquity 74(2): 211-230. 2010a Indigenous Traces in Colonial Spaces: Archaeologies of Ambiguity, Origins, and Practices. Journal of Social Archaeology 10(1) 28-58). 2010b Writing new archaeological narratives: Indigenous North America. In Research Handbook on Postcolonialism and Archaeology, U. Rizvi and J. Lydon, editors, pp. 145-164. World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology Series. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Silverman, D.J. 2005 Faith and Boundaries: Colonists, Christianity, and Community among the Wampanoag Indians of Martha’s Vineyard, 1600-1871. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,.
Shohat, E. 1992 Notes on the Postcolonial. Social Text 31/32:99-113.
Solecki, R.S. 1991 The Archaeology of the Fort Massapequa. Ms. in author’s possession.
Spicer, E. H. 1961 Types of contact and processes of change. In Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change, E. H. Spicer, editor, pp. 517-544. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Spivak, G. C. 1988 Can The Subaltern Speak? In Marxism and the interpretation of Culture, edited by C. Nelson and L. L. Grossberg, pp. 271-313. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. 147
St. George, R.B. 2000 Introduction. In Possible Pasts: Becoming Colonial in Early America, R. B. St. George, editor, pp.1-31. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Stahl, A.B. 2010 Material Histories. In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, D. Hicks and M. Beaudry, editors, pp. 150-172.Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Stoler, A. 1989 Rethinking colonial categories: European communities and the boundaries of rule. Comparative Studies in Society and History 31:134-161.
Thomas, N. 1991 Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in The Pacific. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Thomas, N. 1994 Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel, and Government. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Thorban, P. 1988 Where Are the Late Woodland Villages in Southern New England? Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 49(2): 46-57.
Thorban, P., L. Leparto, D. Cox, and B. Simon 1980 Prehistoric Settlement Processes in Southern New England: A Unified Approach to Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research. Public Archaeology Laboratory, Providence, Rhode Island..
Turgeon, L. 1997 The Tale of the Kettle: Odyssey of an Intercultural Object. Ethnohistory 44(1): 1- 29.
Turnbaugh, S.P. 1976 An Anthropological Historical Archaeology Inquiry into Cultural Variation and Change Based on Ceramic Assemblages from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Unpublished B.A. thesis. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1977 Ideo-Cultural Variation and Change in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 11:169-235.
Turner, E.R. III 1990 A compilation of Virginia Native American Sites Dating to the Contact Period. Report on file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. 148
Turner, T. 1993 [1980] The social skin. In Reading the Social Body, edited by C.B. Burroughs and J. Ehrenreich, pp. 15-39. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa.
Trigger, B. and W.R. Swagerty 1996 Entertaining Strangers: North Americans in the Sixteenth Century. In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Vol 1, Pt. 1, B.G. Trigger and W.E. Washburn, editors, pp. 325-398. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. van Dongen, A. 1996 The Curiosity of the World. In One Man’s Trash Is Another Man’s Treasure: The Metamorphosis of the European Utensil in the New World, pp. 11– 26. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam.
Voss, B. 2008 Gender, Race, and Labor in the Archaeology of the Spanish Colonial Americas. Current Anthropology 49(5):861-872.
Welch, E. S. III 1964 The Archaeology of the R.M. Site, Plymouth Massachusetts. B.A. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
White, C.L. 2005 American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680-1820: A guide to Identification and Interpretation, pp 31-73. AltaMira Press, Oxford, UK.
Williams, R. 1958 Culture and Society, 1750-1950. Chatto and Windus, London, UK
Williams, L. E. 1973 Fort Shantok and Fort Corchaug: A Comparative Study of Seventeenth Century Culture Contact in the Long Island Sound Area. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, New York, New York.
Willoughby, R. 1973 Antiquities of the New England Indians. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
149